This week Star Trek writer/exec producers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman were honored with the George Pal Memorial Saturn Award. While at the event the pair spoke with TrekMovie about the award and also discussed the Star Trek sequel, giving an update on the script status, discussing the importance of the villain in a ‘second movie’ and even talked possible titles (or at least title styles). See highlights and video interview below, plus more photos.

Bob and Alex update on the status of the script

Highlights:

Orci on status of Star Trek sequel script "We have a story, and the next phase is to get together and try to destroy it."

But both clarified that the story still needs to be gone over to see if it "stands scrutiny" and if it doesn’t they will return to the drawing board

Orci on if they have chosen the villain for Star Trek sequel: "have a front runner", but would not elaborate

Will work with Damon Lindelof both on the story and on the script, Kurtzman noting that "I am incredibly relieved to have him full time now" [now that Lost has concluded]

Planning on "diving in" next week as Damon returns from vacation

On the importance of the villain in Star trek sequel

As the 2009 Star Trek movie was an origin story, the villain in the film (Nero) got less of a focus than the crew coming together. In the past Alex Kurtzman has talked about how ‘second movies’ (like Wrath of Khan, Superman II, Empire Strikes Back) are more about the villain. I asked him specifically about this, here is the exchange:

TrekMovie: At the WGA event earlier this year you talked about how second movies are all about the villain. Are you still thinking that way about this movie?

Kurtzman: I think the emphasis is a little different as the first movie is really about watching the team come together. That doesn’t go away in the second movie. The second movie is about how does the team now that they are on their journey, live together as a family, so that is still a big engine of the narrative

TrekMovie: But the action plot and villain become a bigger part of the film?

Kurtzman: I think you have a little bit more room, but I don’t think you can skimp on time with the crew.

Star Trek: The Title?

The brief chat concluded with discussing the title, or more specifically the format for the title for the sequel. When asked if it will have a colon in it (ala Star Trek: Nemesis), Bob said "it probably has to…it can’t be Star Trek XII, it can’t be Star Trek IIa". I suggested an alternative, saying it doesn’t necessarily need to have “Star Trek” in the title and they and can use the same format as the recent Batman franchise films which followed up "Batman Begins" with "The Dark Knight". Bob asked "Is that allowed? Will the fans revolt?"

I offered my pitch for the idea, noting that that the TOS movies all had a roman numeral and TNG movies already did the Star Trek+colon+subtitle thing and so their new series of Trek films should have their own style. Bob seemed intrigued with the idea, noting "Star Trek has been around long enough, you are going to know it is Star Trek, I like that " and Alex said "it’s interesting, we’ll take it to the court and see." Bob then suggested "Cold, Cold Space….or something like that."

We have polled on this before and my idea has been in the minority admittedly. Now let’s try it with just two options (as Bob noted “Star Trek 2″ or “Star Trek II” can’t be done). So what say you given these two choices:

I like the idea of having a main antagonist in the film, but I like the broader, larger message Star Trek films are known for (save the whales, end discrimination, etc.). I would like to see the next film incorporate both if it doesn’t detract from a central message/theme. A super bad-guy who’s defeat teaches us a little something about ourselves or gives us a reason to reflect upon whom we are or what we do with our lives.

Sorry. Watching that now on SyFy. I know they MUST have a villian-driven plot for a contemporary blockbuster, but it would be SO nice to remember to include some thought-provoking social commentary and also some good character development and dialogue. I know, I know… I’m asking an awful lot for my 10 bucks. (or whatever by then)

Hopefully this villain won’t go after Earth, because If Earth is put in direct danger again (third time in a row), I quit. Not only do I not care about Earth in Star Trek, but the Original Series never went to their modern day Earth for a quick save the world plot. The only stories that ever involved Earth were the ones that took the crew to Earth’s past.

I like the idea of the Klingons in the next one. If khan were used, it would have to be along the lines of “Space Seed”, as khan would need to be met by the crew for the first time for the storyline to make sense. You can’t just have khan looking for revenge without the backstory to justify it.

7 – Jeyl — Totally agree. In fact, a smaller plot would be excellent. Kirk could fall for a hot Klingon chick and have to wrestle with his loyalties. She could betray him / get killed… setting up Kirk’s lifelong hatred of Klingons.

I sure wish they’d go with the Mirror Universe in order to maximize exposure for the new actors and to let them chew the scenery a bit.

Orci, Kurtzman and LIndelhof always fall into the trap of too many characters and too much frantic random action. Their plots tend to be too confusing (not a densely thought out story, but a random cacophony of events without menaing or motivation.

“Evil twin universe” is a simple concept that spotlights the actors, evokes warm feelings in Trekkers, is familiar to the public, and has the benefit of having never been featured in a previous Trek movie, From that framework I would hope they could build a good character-driven story about facing danger, and facing yourself and what you might have become.

You need something to identify it as Trek if you don’t use it in the title.. like Dark Knight did. I know this was used in the original Trek.. but maybe “To Boldly Go” or something. I liked that “Enterprise” started without the Star Trek in the title. Too bad they forced them to use it eventually.

I bet the sequels going to be CROSS-OVER between star wars and star trek. I know “the court” loves Star Wars more then Star Trek. I bet we’ll see the complete annihilation of Trek….. So given that state of mind…. I bet the title will be called :

Wow. What a title that be. I’d see a film like that as it invokes images o’ me wit’ Ellen Degeneres. Bob Orca- do ye’s got her number so I can give her a ring? Me fake boobies are just sittin’ in me drawers anyways.

“Puke in the Porthole”

Tha’ story o’ a young crewman named BND who gets spacesick from his drunkenness and infects tha’ crew wit’ “gin”-gavitus.

“Enterpri…” Again, uhhhhhhhh… bad title alls around. Unless they be fightin’ Scott Dracula then it could be…

“The Undead”

And they could bring back all tha’ Vulcans who got sucked into a time bubble as thar’ planet collapsed and went back in time ta’ became a**holes in tha’ beginnin’ o’ tha’ Federation. Scott Dracula sucks. And then T’Pow undresses as Trip eats some fish…. errrrrr… catfish.

another thought, none of the James Bond films has James Bond in the title (or 007). They often use ‘007/gun’ logo and the same could be done with Star Trek with the classic Star Trek title treatment and/or the Star Trek starfleet logo used in the marketing materials.

My idea isn’t to distance it from Star Trek (like they tried with ENTERPRISE at first), but as Bob notes ‘you know it is Star Trek already’ and as i said in the interview, to give their series it’s own feel. The 2009 movie was just “Star Trek” to signal a new beginning. It just feels like going backwards if it returns to the 90s style of “Star Trek: Something Something”.

“We don’t need another villain!
We don’t need to go that way- it’s old
What we want is something new, you know
Have Kirk and Spock fight in Thunderdome.”

Wait a tic… that not be new!

Internal Starfleet conflict… unknown world that be seemed a loomin’ threat but comes oot’ as a planet o’ Teletubbies… Has “Roberto” (is that correct-like? Me name be DJ Tribbleton so I never make fun o’ a bloke’s name but… Roberto?) did he e’er read “The Mote in God’s Eye”?

Oh, I’m bein’ bad. Roberto and Alexo did a very good job on Starry Trek. It wuz’ a fun film so much like an old eppie-sode. I just be worried that number two will be a number tw… Oh, I will stop.

i agree with those that say why does Trek need a villain? wasn’t that berman’s thing and what almost killed the franchise, well movie-wise ’cause he thought a strong bad guy was the only way to pull in an audience other than Trek fans?

and, i wasn’t going to say anything…but @10, yes i agree we are too depended on oil, but they could show in the new movie the real villains was not the greedy BP’s but actually turned out to be the regulations from the true villains, the environmentalist where if the BP’s could have drilled in more shallow and safer waters than the leak could have been stopped in a matter of hours instead of weeks, i mean months, i mean…oh that’s right it’s still going cause they can’t get to it

I know it is the usual bring out a main villain but how about something different a cross between THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE and THE DEVIL IN THE DARK with maybe some of THE GALILEO SEVEN thrown in. If you have to have a villain have them completely alien being but now evil just so different they come in conflict because of that. Maybe have a planet or huge ship in space to explore to create this conflict. Have exploration part of this equation. I really feel like the films have just left part of the cool concepts of STAR TREK behind and I really don’t get why. Well that is just my 2 cents and good luck out there as I hope it is another fun film.

Oh yes one thing I forgot maybe have some working titles finish the script and let that really inform what the title should be. Let it work out organically in this whole creative process of making this new film.

Regarding the comment ‘cold, cold space’ and people thinking that this refers to Khan, well, it may not. These guys like to keep people guessing and the script and direction to be secret. So it may refer to something entirely different – or to nothing in particular. It could, however, be a reference to the Klingons. Remember, in the Day of the Dove, Kang says: ‘You will die of suffocation, in the icy cold of space’….

Personally, I want Khan over the Klingons. I won’t mind, however, so long as the story is good.

Regarding the poll, I voted for keeping ‘Star Trek’ in the title. I don’t think that the Trek brand is yet established enough for it to ‘go it alone’. The analogy with James Bond is, perhaps, misleading: James Bond has always (since it’s creation) been a mainstream hit. And it has a greater sense of identity; not least because we all know of James Bond and the elements of a Bond film – and they’re instantly recognizable. I don’t think that this is true for Star Trek. The advantage that James Bond and Star Wars have over Star Trek, here, is that they have greater mainstream awareness and appreciation; and they follow a strict formula: Bond has the gun barrel, the opening scene, and the music. Star Wars has the music and the opening monologue. ETC.

44. Damn straight. The villain of the moment is getting a bit old (and as someone else said–a threat to earth juast as much). Seems these guys are thinking squarely inside the box. Which is about all you can expect from Hollywood these days. Truly Trek would be better off as a TV series in the current reboot, tentpole, blockbuster formula, 3Dify everything environment. Trek should be about ideas and not every moment dedicated to beating the crap out of someone (not that TOS didn’t have action/adventure, but it was more than that and the best Trek, like Devil in the Dark and City on the Edge of Forever, and Balance of Terror broke formulaic storytelling).

colon= LAME! C’mon! I mean, people will know it’s Trek from the commercials, and us trek lovers will understand the title right away! It’s win-win! Think of it this way… there’s coming out with the Avatar: The Last Airbender movie, but instead of calling it that, they’re just calling it The Last Airbender. Much easier to say!

One of the main things that made Kahn so unique when he appeared is that there weren’t a whole lot of singular villains in Star Trek up to that point. Now we’ve had so many villains following the pattern of Kahn (including Nero, who will still be very fresh in everyone’s memory) that I don’t think reusing him would be a good idea.

I don’t have anything against villains, just make it something a little bit different from what we just saw in the last movie.

You could even throw in the doomsday machine or something along those lines as a minor diversion to start things off…

#24: “I am sick to death of it always having to be a villian in a Star Trek movie!”

Fortunately, it isn’t _always._ We’ve had … what? Two whole movies without villains so far, I think :)

“How about something original for a change?”

I predict that within two or three more films, we’ll have an all-new creative team. My strategy is simply to pop some popcorn and wait it out. I waited for Voyager to pass; I can sure wait through this ;)

“You don’t need a villian to have drama and conflict.”

Not to mention that, arguably, not a single episode of Star Trek (TOS) had a villain. The closest we ever got was the occasional “foil” type (like Khan in Space Seed, and a couple of the Klingons). In Star Trek, there were problems to be solved, not Bad Guys to be Defeated.

But then came Wrath of Khan, which was brilliant and became a textbook case of Accepted Wisdom & Timidity plus Hollywood Taking The Wrong Lessons … kind of like, after Lord of the Rings, every cheap* knockoff LotR-wannabe movie aped exactly the wrong things, as if what made the LotR movies great were just sweeping aerial shots of mountain ranges followed by noisy CGI land-battles (I swear, it seems like those are the only two elements the imitators took any notice of …)

Sorry, I like the words Star Trek. In JJs movie, when those two words showed up on screen….for the first time in 40 years using the cool TOS font, paired with that rousing music…it was like going home again. Don’t get gimmicky with it or over-analyze it. just call it Star Trek: “……………….”.

Let’s see, the writing team could, oh I don’t know, go in a gazillion different directions that would entertain us with the next movie, or do a paint-by-numbers villian story………..gee, which will they pick?

#62: “or do a paint-by-numbers villian story………..gee, which will they pick?”

Here’s my note of pure optimism for the day: maybe this time it’s a fake-out. It’ll _seem_ like a villain (as in TOS, it often _seemed_ to be a villain) but ultimately, Kirk and crew will _solve_ the problem instead of beating it up, real Star Trek style.

“To Boldly Go” or “Where No One Has Gone Before” sound a bit too cheesy to me (and the latter seems too wordy).

I do also like “The Final Frontier,” but that IS essentially taken, even if the other has “Star Trek V:” in front of it. Calling the reboot “Star Trek” (despite there already being “Star Trek: TMP”) made sense as a fresh new take on the franchise, but I don’t want to see its sequels taking any other names from the previous films. It sends the wrong message. We can’t pretend that “Star Trek V: The Final Frontier” doesn’t exist, nor do we want people to think it’s being remade.

#72
Do you not remember the last franchise that did that? Enterprise? They tried that “new take” on it, but in the end the show failed because they betrayed all the Trekkies and tried to attract an audience that already wasn’t interested in the first place. They eventually put Star Trek back into the title because they realized that most of their viewers were Trekkies to begin with and that is the demographic that keeps these shows alive. Star Trek XI: Star Trek broke quite a few rules. There are many flaws in the movie which is why it is no where as good as Star Trek II, VI, IV, III or I. Yes, they managed to bring in a new crowd and managed to keep all the Trekkies, but if they intend to do it again, they need to start with the basics: keeping Star Trek in the title.

I am personally pinning my hopes on an interesting follow up to the vulcans predicament. Finding a new home and making it their own. It could hold some interesting exploration possibilities, which many people are hoping for. The Enterprise could be called upon to deal with an unexpected mystery/problem.
Strange new Worlds or simply Vulcan would work I think.

I think that putting “like Star Trek : Nemesis” as a comparison is a slight attempt to skew the results of this poll towards the other answer. Why not use a movie that used that format which DIDN’T suck?

Here’s my take on what it should be: So we start out in a flashback to the deleted scene when the Klingon’s stole the Narada. While warping back to Klingon space, a ship traveling sub-warp hits the S.S. Bottany Bay, still untouched. The ship then is boarded and all crew is taken back to Rura Penthe with Nero and crew. Then we skip to Nero escaping and stealing back the Narada and while he revolts, Khan finds it as a time to revolt as well. Him and his crew of superior stringth and intellect kill all Klingon guards on the asteroid. The Klingon High Command then brings Khan to a trial and finds he could be of great use to the empire. Thus sets up a story using both Klingons and Khan.

The colon was abandoned already when the last movie was titled simply “Star Trek” to indicate a new series of films, so it would be kind of anticlimactic to go back to the colon. Most fans don’t care, since the titles are usually abbreviated based on the second part: TMP, TWOK, TSFS, TVH, TFF, TUC, GEN, FC, INS, NEM. Even when using the full title, most people don’t bother with the “Star Trek” part because it’s redundant.

I mind. When I see fans abbreviating it as ST09, my first thought is “Insurrection”! ST already stands for Star Trek in general, ST2009 or ST (2009) is way too long for a Star Trek movie acronym. STXI is probably the best option, but it isn’t consistent with the official name. The best format of the longer version is “Star Trek” (2009).

#88 yeh. I like Where No Man Has Go Gone Before. Sadly, in these politically correct times, would it have to be the more clunky Where No One Has Gone Before?
I like the idea of Gary Mitchell being in the next movie. But, this time, he’s zapped by some hidden force on the new Vulcan homeworld, which gives him the same powers that we saw in the original ep.
This time he escapes from Kirk’s grasp and a desperate chase ensues to stop him from wreaking havoc on the local Mall (or whatever!).
Hey, Bob, this isn’t so tough!

It’s funny that people bother with story ideas around here, since I can’t imagine Orci/Kurtzman ever using them for fear of lawsuits (“Hey, I posted that idea at trekmovie.com, and Orci is reading it!”). Or maybe ST is in a better position and can handle such lawsuits easily? I’d be interested in boborci’s comments on the subject.

I think we all assume that the altered universe has been fixed at the end of the movie but I bet it hasn’t, if so they could tell a story of khan in a differnet way.

A Darker way.

Khan and his followers awoke years ago and settled on a planet that in time took over and formed a oppressive regime. Genetic experiments continue. A resistance exists, but he is a King without a suitable Queen.

Kirk and crew arrive hoping for supplies after retreating from a space battle with the Klingon’s and Khan ends up admiring Uhura and he takes her as his Queen.

The Klingons arrive, Kirk and crew must save the ship, rescue Uhura, defeat the Klingons and save the planet from a tyrant.

#’104 its funny, that was discussed elsewhere on Trekmovie just a couple of weeks ago.
Apparently we are all listed as Consultants on the next movie, so anything we come up with is covered under that. ;-D!
Besides, if by some bizarre chance, anything any fan could come up was, apparently, used I would think most of us would just be thrilled.
I’m sure I would be. It wouldn’t enter my head to consult a lawyer.

108 – not even if the movie makes millions and the story is extremely similar to your idea, but you get nothing? Unfortunately there are people who do file lawsuits even if they had nothing to do with the story, which is a very real problem for writers – I’m not making this up. I can only assume that Bob Orci is very well protected against such lawsuits.

I don’t mind the use of a villain; only that the villain needs to be multi-faceted and not just evil or out for revenge. If they indeed do Khan and the Klingons in the sequel, let’s create the conflict out of philisophical differences based on the nature of Khan and/or the Klingons. And maybe the greater plot could be one similar to the TNG episode “The Chase” or something along the lines as “Raiders Of The Lost Ark”.

#112 you may be correct, Boris. I honestly don’t know. I’m pretty sure B&A will very much put their own twist on anything they would see that they would consider worth using. Then how could any litigious poster prove anything.

Anyhoo, back to my Gary Mitchell ramblings. Now we would have Bone’s to make the situation that much harder for Kirk. Spock, as before, would be advising Kirk to kill Gary, while Bones would be very much against it.

Bones: ‘But, goddamit, Jim, Gary was your second bestest friend at the Academy, after me. And if you hadn’t of stolen his green girlfriend he would never have fallen out with you. How can you steal his green girlfriend and then kill him? Damnit, Jim, it just don’t look good’

Kirk: ‘I don’t need to be lectured by you, Doctor. I know i stole his green girlfriend, but, c’mon, she was SO GREEN! It always made me laugh when I turned the lights back on after we, well, you know, did stuff.’

Spock: ‘Captain, you must kill him. He is no longer the Gary Mitchell that you stole the green girl from’.

Bones: ‘Dammit, Spock, how can you say kill him? Your blood may be as green as the girl that Jim stole off Gary, but why must you be so damned cold blooded as well. Damnit’.

Spock: ‘Doctor, your emotions are going to get every individual on this ship killed. I am trying to save us. If that makes me heartless, then so be it. But at least I only stole Engineer Scots future girlfriend from a different timeline, and not Gary Mitchells green girlfriend from the current timeline. I think we know who the heartless one is’.

And while this tri-play is going on, Gary, theatricly, flings his cloak over his head and sneaks off muttering, ‘i’ll get you Kirk, i’ll get you. Nobody steals my green girlfriend and gets away with it. wahaha’.
And we’re set.
Bob, feel free to use that. ;-)

116 – Most writers don’t deliberately steal other people’s story ideas, but for some people who file a lawsuit, it’s enough that the writers were regular readers when a particular story idea was posted. That’s why it is funny that people can’t resist the temptation to suggest story ideas, as if they will somehow be used and they will get credit. There are agents and official channels for that kind of thing (or alternatively, fanfic forums).

I don’t have a problem with reboots, but why can’t we have a “hibernate” instead of a “reboot” for a change? A “hibernate” would involve, for example, continuing TOS exactly where it left off. Naturally, the technology isn’t there yet to achieve this grand vision of mine, since we would have to recreate all the actors, sets, and their performances precisely in CGI, so I’m waiting a few decades to propose it.

How about having a Vulcan just returned from a deep-space mission only to be driven mad with wanting revenge when he finds his homeworld has been destroyed. Invitably he is driven with anger and equally, inevitably, he blames Kirk.
Ashton Kutcher in Dude, where’s my Planet?

I just hope they use KHAN so people would learn to spell his name correctly (looks at #1, #57, etc)!

BobOrci & co: ignore the fanboys, go with your gut. If you listened to them for the first film it would have been a disaster (with no chance of a sequel in the first place!) instead of the huge success it is today.

Read the TOS novel Faces of Fire. Good book. Has Klingons, Carol Marcus, a young David Marcus, even a young Kruge. Would love to see a villain like Kruge, a mean, sadistic SOB, a meaningful romance for Kirk (Spock got his piece last time), and have Kirk kick some Klingon ass.

However, my friend knows me and knows that I will go and see the film eitherway.

But what scares me is that when Enterprise was struggling I stayed with it but these writers do things that I totally disagree with in Star Trek and I make this threat. I am a huge Trekkie and love it all so why do I have this feeling?

Some of the best Star Trek never had a villain, but instead a threat from the unknown or a conflict between interplanetary race(s).

Both Wrath of Khan and First Contact worked so well because they dealt with foes from past episodes in either space seed or the aftermath of best of both worlds.

Voyage Home was well done and it was about humans and how we gotta change our ways or our planet will be destroyed literally.

Star Trek TUC dealt with racism and the cold war between the Federation and the Klingons and asked the question, what if the walls came down?

I would love to see the Enterprise come across something so sci fi, it really intrigues the audience and within the finding there is a mystery and a quest of some sort. A Gateway, Artificially built planet, Dark Matter, city within a Star, something crazy and sci fi like that. I want the latest and greatest in Science Fiction story telling.

You can have a good combination between mirror mirror, the guardian and the rise of the Klingon Empire, something so messed up that Khan himself is the High Warlord of the Klingons.

One more thought, just stay away from the Nero type villains, bent on revenge, destroy planets, genocide etc.

Give us a enemy that just wants to win and be the best and beat Kirk and the Federations best. I also like Starship on Starship battles, for some reason Starship on alien ship battles never worked for me.

Simple story, USS Enterprise asked to retrieve prototype USS Excelsior that has vanished in the bermuda triangle of space…upon arrive the crew discovers something extrodinary and as Spock would say, “fascinating.” The USS Excelsior was testing cloaking technology, technology that came from the Klingons who extracted it from Nero’s ship at time of capture. Onboard the USS Excelsior is Captain Khan and que flashback of Khan’s intergration story into starfleet, found by a transport ship 10years earlier and rose above the ranks to join the CIA of Starfleet to test advance research and design.

#145 as well as the movies you listed I loved the way exploration was handled in Master and Commander. I’ve posted as much before.
It helped drive the plot and yet we were able to share in their wonderment.
It need not take the whole 2 hours, but 15 minutes of the movie wouldn’t be too much to ask. CGI could do its funky stuff to great effect.

I think Orci and Kutzman said what I hoped for. Whilst the first movie did an amazing job at introducing us to these characters, the 2nd movie needs to delve into the personalities of these characters and how they work together as a team on the ship. I want to see team work but also real conflict. I would also like to see more of McCoy.

Villain:

The Villain to the 2nd movie needs to be more prominent to the story than Nero was, he/she needs to be the reason for the development of our heroes just like Vader was in Star Wars and the Joker was in The Dark Knight. The Villain needs to be the reason for the development of the main crew of the USS Enterprise.

Action Adventure:

The first movie put Star Trek on another level in terms of it’s spectacle and special and visual FX and the 2nd movie should continue that trend without going over the top like the 2nd Transformers and Iron Man movies.

In the end i would like to go into the cinema and watch the sequel and come out feeling that everything had moved on from the first movie. So many times i feel so disappointed with sequels because they just don’t move on, they don’t develop and their characters are left to repeat the first movie – I don’t want to see Star Trek end up like this. Like Batman/Bruce Wayne in The Dark Knight, i would like to see Kirk and Co. develop around ever changing surroundings.

I still think the next movie has to deal at least somewhat with the repercussions in Starfleet with this kid fresh out of the academy being handed the keys to the flagship of the Federation. How do the veterans in Starfleet feel about this?

I keep flashing back to the nightclub scene in the episode “Court Martial”, where the officers in the club were giving Kirk a hard time. The reason for their behavior was different – they believed the accusation that Kirk had lost Ben Finney through incompetence or worse – but this was the only time we ever saw that Kirk wasn’t universally loved and respected throughout the Fleet.

I agree with #61; Seeing the words “Star Trek” in TOS font style on the big screen last year sent chills up my spine, it was eye-catching, and heart-warming at the same time, like seeing an old friend for the first time in 30 years…

I also kinda like the idea of using a different name instead of continuing the previous versions. But there is a difference here between what they did with Batman, The Dark Knight is simply another name for the same character. What name could be used that signifies Star Trek, or is simply another name for star trek? Star Ship Odessey? Space adventures of the 23 Century? Infinite Voyage? Galactic Frontier? Dunno, its a tough one to think of. And also I think that anything posted here is fair game, public domain, unless we all chose to copyright every post we make. :}

Wel, I don’t want to see anything that’s been proposed here, because I don’t like to be spoiled. How about an Orci/Kurtzman/Lindelof script without input from trekmovie.com readers? Oh, wait, I’ll probably see something like that anyway.

Regarding the poll; you NEED Star Trek in the title.
The lesson of Enterprise…

If they DO bring back Khan, I hope it’s in a different capacity. Wouldn’t it be interesting for this slightly wilder, less polished Kirk to recognize the strong, unorthodox potential in Khan, and make Khan an ally to help defeat something even worse that threatens them all?

Otherwise, I don’t want to see a remake of “Wrath of Khan” thank you; in fact, my friends and I are attending a screening of the original in Riverside, CA (not Iowa) tonight.

What lesson of Enterprise? Did it get better because it was renamed Star Trek: Enterprise? If anything, it supposedly got better one season later because Manny Coto was brought in. Battlestar Galactica didn’t exactly have a helpful title either because of the 70s show, but the writing of the reimagined series raised its credibility in the end. It’s just a title.

161 Boris i wouldn’t bet on it. I think all the bases have been covered on here over the months!
Besides, what does it matter if fans enjoy chpping in with thoughts and ideas. Nobody honestly expects their idea to be lifted and used. Its just a bit of fun.

I voted for Star Trek — colon — subtitle, but I’d be happy either way. The thing is, with “Star Trek” in front they can get more creative with the subtitle, but without “Star Trek” in front the title would have to be something very general that’s recognisably Trek — like “Strange New Worlds” or whatever.

Personally I don’t see why they can’t use “Star Trek 2″ — with a number instead of a Roman numeral this time. I mean, really, this is a new series of movies, isn’t it? Alex & Bob have said as much with their referring to this as the “second movie”. Why can’t they start numbering them again?

As regards the story: I *really* hope they don’t make Khan the villain *yet again*. Returning in “Wrath of Khan” out for revenge does not make Khan Kirk’s nemesis — he is not the Joker to Kirk’s Batman. Kirk doesn’t really *have* a single adversary like that. What the Enterprise did have was a general adversary in the Klingons, and *that’s* who the villains should be in this new movie. I mean, really, how can you effectively revive TOS and not bring back the Klingons? If they do want a proper singular villain, then they should bring back Kang or Kor.

163: “Regarding the poll; you NEED Star Trek in the title.
The lesson of Enterprise…”

Oh come on, folks. Enough with the post hoc ergo propter hoc. Enterprise failed because nobody watched it, including many Star Trek fans, like myself, who drifted away. It didn’t fail because it didn’t have “Star Trek” in the title.

Sequel ideas:
Have Carol Marcus in the sequel getting preggers
Klingons with advanced tech due to Narada study for 25 years
Mention of Old Spock on Romulus trying for Reunification
Vulcan refugees
Love triangle with Spock, Uhura and Leila Komani
Have Andorians and Tellarites this time
Meet McCoy’s daughter

Well, for non-US audiences, the fourth picture was marketed as THE VOYAGE HOME with Star Trek IV in smaller lettering underneath. The movie credits were even changed to reflect that. Why? Possibly because Star Trek fans knew what it was, while the studio focused on publicising it as a broader action comedy.

Everyone refers to EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, but it has Star Wars wrapped around that in a border, on the poster. While that overall title is the first name onscreen, followed by Episode V.

The next film could try to exist without the words Star Trek in it. But it has to be a massive trademark fixed in the public’s mind, almost as much.

I don’t think Enterprise was less successful, because it didn’t start from the beginning with the two word moniker. Other circumstances led to it being a bit slow out of the starting gate. A decade and a half of continuous series, led to familarity breeding contempt to a certain degree. UPN also dropped the ball shortly after it launched, even if the writing has kept up the momentum. I loved the adventures of Archer and the NX-01 for their pilot episode and then the interest slid for most, until it began to live up to the premise in those later seasons.

If you were to reuse ENTERPRISE in the title, it would be a little more respectful to return the favour and at least, offer Scott Bakula or others from that cast, actual cameos. That way their fans are happy to see their heroes on the big-screen and trekkers everywhere else, see the name as a bold statement of intent.

Al Queda? A network of underground extremists with impossible, idealistic demands led by someone we like to portray as a madman but were willing to arm when he was fighting our enemies? Probably doable in the Star Trek universe. Maybe a little on the nose. Would take some tweaking.

The environment / ourselves for destroying it? Been done (see ST IV). Plus, we just had a major, planetary catastrophe with Vulcan in the last film, so this might seem like a re-tread.

What makes me afraid? I’ll tell you.

Given the chance of actually being killed by a suicide bomb (whether in Times Square or elsewhere), I’m not as afraid of that as I am of what kind of world that would create. The things I value most are my ability to chose my own profession, where I live, where I travel… my freedom.

I’m currently in Toronto on business, and the G20 Summit is here. This place was so cool just a few days ago, and now it’s on lockdown. I can’t go to my favorite restaurants, bookstores, theatres. They’re closed or I can’t get there because transit is closed. Knowing all this will go away on Monday makes it endurable. But what if it didn’t? What if this was how life was?

So who’s the villian here? Hard to say. A little quaint, I think, to say “ourselves” and weave a cautionary tale. But equally quaint to lay all our fears on an outsider. Star Trek has always been at it’s best when it takes fantasy-sci-fi and makes it all the more real by an allegorical approach. Our world is complex. In our hearts we all believe we know right and wrong, and any epic film should reflect that. But I want to see our friends on the Enterprise face real problems, real fears. Our fears.

If Star Trek 2009 was essentially 9/11, the next film could deal with what comes after that. With now. When areas are much more gray, the villians are harder to find, and the consequences are our way of life.

181. I think you u derstand my point which was brought up to address liability issues when commenting on an established franchise. We literally have not confirmed A SINGLE thing about the sequel, and you are already jumping down my throat?

182. Boborci – You have one of the toughest jobs in the world trying to please everybody here. When we can’t even agree what is good. Thanks for posting here and putting up with it all. Looking forward to the sequel. You guys made Star Trek cool and accessible again. Thank you!

I myself can’t wait for Damon Lindelof to return from vacation. I am sooo looking forward to his changes since he obviously outranks Bob and Alex on the Supreme Court.

Let’s see, he’ll bring lots of teen angst and sex from his years writing for MTV’s “Undressed”. Chekov might give Spock a run for his money with Uhura! And Kirk could use a little injection from “Nash Bridges” (who couldn’t?). Plus we’ll get some of that CSI procedural, and maybe Kirk and Spock can do some role playing to figure out a problem rather than just a boring briefing, all inspired by Crossing Jordan. But I’m mostly looking for the “Lost” influence. Who better to deal with a character with father issues like Kirk than Lindelof? Perhaps the Enerprise will encounter mystery after mystery (perhaps some involving ancient ruins), all of which will be unsolved at the end of the movie, but that’s OK because Star Trek is about the character’s. As long as they all end up hugging and loving each other at the end of the movie, all will be well. Maybe we will find out that Spock Prime is actually dead and there was no time travel or parallel universe at all, but rather just some sort of transition period Spock has to come to terms with his final death … and all of the surviving original cast members, including Shatner, will walk together into a bright white light. The End.

And I’m thinking that his early Marvel comics writing will help with the superhero, supernatural aspects too. Assuming the “villain” is not some kind of ominous unexplained black smoke (Obsession anyone), perhaps it will be super-powered bad guys like General Zod, who can exist in the vacuum of space.

One of the reasons I like the Khan idea so much is because his background is relevant to what’s happening in the world today. I think it’s always relevant. Eugenics. Population control. Normalizing authoritarian power under the pretext of safety or security. And since Khan comes from our own time, it’s a way of naturally raising the concerns of our own time in the plot of the movie.

The problem: the Klingon’s arrogantly militaristic society has them unknowingly on the brink of self destruction w/ horribly unimaginable suffering / loss / degradation (hell on earth). In addition, their plan is to project their technology into space on an interplanetary scale, where it’s effect is far greater than they anticipate.

Our (Federation) problem: we already went through this stage of human evolution hundreds of years ago: the military / energy / tobacco / profit driven scientific community had nothing but disdain for the medical / life sciences, unless it could be applied in a negative / profitable manner. One arrogantly believing that it had nothing to do with the other, when in fact, EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED.

…but, their culture does not trust us, to say the least! …as they attempt to blast us out of the sky on first sight, both out of fear, and lust for our advanced technology.

…but our sensors have seen what they are doing, and we cannot just stand by while they foolishly destroy all life on their planet, as well as f**k up a huge part of the quadrant, in fact, affecting the entire galaxy’s magnetic field.

…but there are also Prime Directive issues… not to mention: how do we get them to see that what they are doing is hurting themselves? in addition to a multitude of innocent life that they have little or no regard for. Can this be done? Do we intercede?

Thanks, Bob. I’m an actor based in Chicago, and I’m playing the lead in the Mamma Mia tour, hence the Toronto stay. I’d love to be in your film. My agent is Gray Talent in Chicago. And that’s all I’ll say about that.

All kidding aside, you can’t copyright an idea, especially one that is in of itself based on a well established copyrighted character. And no self-respecting writer like Bob, who would write something on the scale of “The Clonus Horrors” … I MEAN “The Island” (I keep doing that), would be so unoriginal not to change it enough to avoid trampling directly on someone else’s copyright anyway.

Though, technically there is no claim to copyright unless the originator claims it (which is not being done here and would most definitely wok against such later claims), and can then prove specific copyrightable elements were originated by themselves and not derived from any other pre-existing source. And as Bob points out, that’s not very likely.

If you like the idea of a bin Laden-type enemy, why not take Lord Garth to the extreme. The fans know him. He could be played with a lot more layering than he got in “Whom Gods Destroy,” but the template is sound. He’d be an ally who went bonkers-bad. Oh, and it would be great fun to have an Orion slave girl in the mix.

Beyond that, this has been a very good thread for you guys to look over.

I’m with 178.
Have a villain thats “us”
While the fan boy in me would love to see your take on an alternate kirk vs khan,I think its the idea of that “friction” that would make a great Trek.
I would love to see that idea of kirk vs equal opponent and test him to his max.
Great to see you here as always.

The idea that you have to interfere with other cultures because what they are doing either is or could be dangerous to you is just the latest way authoritarianism is reinventing itself.

You could ALWAYS use that excuse to shut up or imprison anybody who does something you don’t approve of.

The Rosebud (Lakota Indian rez) is my second home, so I am very familiar with the present aftereffects that ignoring our own laws has had on native peoples in this country.

I’ve also been to Diego Garcia, whose inhabitants were relocated by the US Government in the 70’s so that their island home could be converted into a military base, so much hasn’t changed in our attitudes between the 1870’s and 1970’s.

And it’s a problem we face today under the current administration and Congress: Whenever our politicians want something bad enough, they will find a way to circumvent our laws to get it, taking us another step down the road toward authoritarianism.

Im still trying to think of a “Dark Knight” type name for Trek. Maybe something from sci-fi pulp fiction from the 40′ or 50’s “Enterprise VS The Klingons!” or “Enterprise VS Khan!” Similar to “Earth vs The Flying Saucers!” :]

I remember early this year that the producers is considering making two movies back to back. I am wondering if they are still considering this option. It would make sense if they want to keep the fans and potential fans interested like the Hary Potter movies.

Bob Orci: I see, but you’ve obviously managed to to a number of things in the last movie which haven’t been done to death – for example, Spock and Uhura are in a relationship, and it’s not a Leila Kailomi situation. Suppose someone were to describe very specifically how that particular relationship should evolve in the next movie, especially since you probably don’t have as much leeway in determining character interactions as in choosing external elements such as villains or new alien races.

I’m thinking mainly of the example where J. Michael Straczynski had to shelve a planned Babylon 5 story idea about a mind-wiped character who discovers his past life, because someone later posted it on one of the newsgroups where JMS was contributing regularly. The story was used only after the fan had realized the problem and provided a notarized paper which would shield the story from theoretical lawsuit.

However, I suppose it also depends on the project and how well it is legally prepared for such cases; the B5 situation probably isn’t comparable to the Star Trek franchise in terms of the number of lawyers.

Suppose there is more luck of them meeting up at the Academy but there is a 3 year age difference between Kirk and Spock, Given if they both entered the academy when they are 18 they would not be in the same classes. In fact one would leaving as the other be entering almost.

But then Spock’s knowledge of the KM could be known because they were at the academy but then since Kirk is a close friend to McCoy and Spock he could have told them.

I guess it is open to intrpetation in the prime universe.

Guess Im glad your film allows Trek to continue and still exist separately from the others.

I do hope we get to see Kirk mature into a true commanding officer in the next movie, Pine was terrific in Trek 2009, but he wasn’t quite Captain James T. Kirk yet. Have a scene where Kirk looks longingly at a female member of the crew (a Yeoman Rand cameo?) but realizes he’s Captain now and can’t have her. Maybe this can lead to Carol Marcus coming on the ship for a special assignment and Kirk falling for her.

I really liked Star Trek. You and your team did what a lot of people always wanted to do, you made Star Trek epic and big and feel like a Star Trek movie. Also, I thought all the actors really did a wonderful job. You can totally see Pine having all the elements that Shatner created in Kirk, yet he was still bringing something new to it.

In regards to the time travel aspect, I thought it was a real clever way of having two realities co-exist. And, as a bonus, you’re able to bring back Shatner, but not the Shatner that we know from the Prime reality, but the Shatner from the Pine reality, if that makes any sense.

Anyway, I’ve made a really cool short film, if you want to check it out. And it might even be the first short film ever with a “Fringe” homage. If you can find it. I like that show too. I watch it every week.

The short is called “Initiative #435″ and you can view it on youtube here…

178. Except that the destruction of Vulcan was an act of terrorism and not an environmental issue. It was also treated very lightly, beyond the context of Spock losing Amanda and having a key moment to discuss it with Sarek.

The next film’s villain (if that is what he is and not simply an opportunist, seeking to make the situation better from his POV) should be intimately connected to that plot. The Federation has just been destablised. Consider what the absence of Vulcan admirals and politicians has had, if they’re too busy dealing with finding a new home and their own survival? In ENT, TOS and TNG times, they were the calm voice and steady hand on humankinds’ shoulder, preventing us from acting impulsely.

Thanks for the feedback Bob and glimpse into the story process with the Court.

When trying to shake the story, if you also just double check that the ‘antagonist’ is something that people will genuinely care about. I think there is always a danger when dealing with issues that aren’t black/white, and easily personified, that the dramatic effect for the audience could get lost (sad but true) and I while I want the next Trek to be deep and layered, I also recognize the need for it to be accessible and understood in a few short sentenes that resonate with the public.

Well, I don’t really care about the title, what I care about is story and character development. In the first movie you had a lot of situations shoe-horned onto the characters which brought on all of the silly coincidences. Ending of course with cadet Kirk promoted straight to Captain. Though I enjoyed the movie even with the problems.

Now the crew is together and we have a situation in which an organic story can grow. You have an untested Captain, who may very well find himself in over his head. The crew would surely notice this. This, as the B story, would be be the perfect time for McCoy, the psychologist and Spock, the friend to step up to help him become what he needs to be, the real Captain of the Enterprise, not the kid who was promoted too fast. You would also have a situation in which our beloved crew members have to decide what they can do about the Captain.

Then you have the destruction of Vulcan. I would think this would leave both a technological and strategic (not to mention economic) hole in the Federation’s defenses. A crafty and ruthless opponent (perhaps Klingon), would want to exploit this.

The Enterprise could find herself stuck between politics and a shooting war.

agree with those who use the Star Wars OT as perhaps the way to go title wise

Star Wars
The Empire Strikes Back
Return of the Jedi

ok i KNOW the 1977 movies’ exact title is ‘Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope and ESB is ‘SW: Episode V – The Empire Strikes Back’ but at the time of release they were known primarily as their respective titles – with a little‘star wars‘ wrapped around in there …..the whole ‘SW: Episode whatever’ came a good while after (due to the approaching prequels – which were more defined by ‘Star Wars Episode…’ – need to have it all a big saga)

The Voyage Home also did this to a certain extent (overseas?)

So with the new Trek trilogy (and I think it will be just a trilogy) perhaps the same could be done (as ST09 took its cue from the SW OT in many ways anyway). Have the title which would refer more to the story more so than a Dark Knight inspired star trekian altername like ‘Final Frontier,’ ‘Prime Directive’ or ‘Boldly Go’

So for e,g:
Star Wars
Klingon Empire Strikes Back (little star trek wrapped around the title logo on the posters)
Return of Khan

Could even reuse the big ‘S T A R T R E K’ steel block letters intro onscreen after the opening sequence – (that could be star treks version of the massive yellow ‘STAR WARS’ that opened each SW movie) – then have the title of the movie ‘Return of Khan or whatever’ come up onscreen after as the movie begins…

Either that or just go the TNG movie route and simply have it ‘Star Trek: Something Something’ I dunno

I don’t think scrapping ‘star trek’ altogether from the title and going with something star trekian (like TDK) is the way to go though..

We literally have not confirmed A SINGLE thing about the sequel, and you are already jumping down my throat?

“Jumping down your throat,” because I point out that there are innumerable possibities for storytelling in the Reboot universe and that not all ideas are already “owned” by Trek?

Okay….

I very much enjoyed your first film – aside from some major problems I still wrestle with (like the whole Spock/Uhura thing) – but the TOS universe has meant the world to me for nearly 40 years. I still have a full set of original Mego dolls, half filled TOS coloring books and a Star Trek plastic kid’s drink cup on a shelf, so yeah, I am somewhat invested in what you might do to the characters I have loved since I was a wee tyke.

‘Where No Man Has Gone Before’ is somewhat un PC, but up there with the iconic phrases everybody associates with Star Trek, like Final Frontier, Beam Me Up Scotty, Warp Speed, Vulcan… without actually saying Star Trek.

The use of the word “man” isn’t understood though. It’s not sexist at all. It’s about humanity… it refers to mankind. Why fix what isn’t broken?

Casino Royale didn’t make the grade, as far as Bond titles went for decades. Just not exciting in a world of Pulp Fiction and Royale with cheese. Then, much to everybody’s surprise… it did. Because it was seen as a distinction between 007 titles which had more or less become a pastiche of Ian Fleming’s use of a good phrase. CR was penned right there at the beginning, just like Roddenberry approved Samuel Peeple’s WNMHGB.

“Have the title which would refer more to the story more so than a Dark Knight inspired star trekian altername like ‘Final Frontier,’ ‘Prime Directive’ or ‘Boldly Go’

So for e,g:
Star Wars
Klingon Empire Strikes Back (little star trek wrapped around the title logo on the posters)
Return of Khan”

LOL

On a serious note, this works great for the Bond franchise, the Jack Ryan franchise, the Jason Bourne franchise, if that’s what they’re going for. Harry Potter obviously didn’t take that route, nor did Pirates of The Caribbean, Jurassic Park, Iron Man, Indiana Jones, Lord of the Rings, Twilight, Transformers, Toy Story, Men in Black, Austin Powers, Alien, Spiderman, and most of the other top grossing movies of all time.

The ONLY blockbuster which deviated from this pattern is The Dark Knight, the phenomenal success of which I question is largely due to the death of Heath Ledger and an enormous fan base compared to Star Trek. To follow that model purely on its track record would be unwise.

And one thing the Bond, Ryan, and Bourne franchise had going for them, was an incredibly successful top-selling book sales ahead of the films being made.

Star Trek has a limited fan base. The goal of any franchise is to capitalize on its trademarks. As long as the next movie can get the point across to the mainstream audience the studio craves, then leaving the actual franchise name out of it is fine. I personally don’t think Star Trek has made that big an impact on the mainstream yet, especially after a prolonged lull at the box office, when most other ESTABLISHED franchises are hitting the box-office every two years or less.

Garth of Izar is an awesome character to use; so much unexplored potential, a nice thematic tie to TOS, plus no one can accuse him of being an overused character. Perhaps he suffers some fall from grace that leads him to nurse a grudge against the service to which he had given his life, and which had celebrate him when he could serve them. There are lots of different directions they could take the character, but I like the idea of Kirk (and Starfleet) having to deal with a threat from within.

Jon Favreau? Did I miss a news flash??? Is he involved in Star Trek 2.0? If so, awesome!! He took an “unknown” character and turned him into a critical and box office success with great casting and storytelling.

Bob, I seem to remember in an interview a while back, you guys were considering using “The Mote in God’s Eye” as a basis for a new movie. Is this still the case?

I’m not writer, so take my suggestions with a grain of salt, but the whole villain bent on destroying a planet story is far worn out in the Star Trek universe. I know ST09 was like that, but it was done well, so I applaud you.

Have you considered having nature itself be the villain? Perhaps the Enterprise is stranded somewhere with resources diminishing. This would allow for inner struggle, as well as struggle against the crew.

I’d say drop the Star Trek but that sure backfired for Enterprise. Also take into account they are making this film for the masses and NOT us Star Trek fans.
Star Trek should remain right where it belongs at the top.

246: Why is it a must? As proven by Pascale, The Dark Knight did not have Batman in the title and did great. And I don’t think that there is a single James Bond movie with “James Bond” in the title. And I think that Raiders of the Lost Ark was better in its original version without the “Indianna Jones” in the title.

Well, on the title issue I agree that there is no need for ‘Star Trek’ or a colon or a number etc. Just give it an interesting stand-alone title. That ginormous rotating “Star Trek” graphic could be used again during the title sequence, like the iconic James Bond ‘looking-down-the-gun-barrel’ shot used at the beginning of Bond films. I say to the Supreme Court, free yourself from the shackles of the colon!

Also, budget permitting, the new film could be an opportunity to have our Trek family deal with some truly alien looking aliens for a change. (Not humans in makeup….something really bizarre.) Just a thought.

# Orci on status of Star Trek sequel script “We have a story, and the next phase is to get together and try to destroy it.”
# But both clarified that the story still needs to be gone over to see if it “stands scrutiny” and if it doesn’t they will return to the drawing board
————————————————————————————————–
Is this a new technique that they’re trying out, then? Because it sure doesn’t feel like Transformers 2 went through that process.

After reading through this whole thread (why, oh why did I read the whole thing?) and I am convinced that the same problem exists now as before the new film debuted: the fan base is impossible to please.

Mr. Orci, I think the last film was a kick ass ride which made Trek fun in a way it hadn’t been in years. Thank you.

I don’t care what the name is or who the villain is in the next one. I just hope you and the crew can build on that fine foundation, ignore the constant bickering from the nerd herd, and do that voodoo that you do so well.

#230 – It was *always* “Star Wars – Episode V : The Empire Strikes Back”, the opening title and crawl has not changed in all its 30 years.

The titles in the posters for “Empire” and “Jedi” did not have the “Episode” in them but they DID have the “Star Wars” logo attached to them (albiet smaller). “Empire” had it ringing it while “Jedi” had it on top. It’s similar to how they did the title of “First Contact” with the “Star Trek” in much smaller font.

Good to see BobOrci here. Even though he has to wade through a lot of nonsense. With Damon and Alex, they already have a great team and don’t need some of the ridiculous suggestions I’ve seen here.

A story about why the Federation is not allowed to use cloaking technology and why the Neutral Zone exists or came to be. The movie could be filmed in a non linear manner, before and after the formation of the Neutral Zone.

You don’t have to have some main character playing a villain. The idea of the good guys vs the bad guys gets boring after a while.

Khan will be played by Steve Guttenberg and tries to join Starfleet to further his own ambitions, but his cadet instructor, played by GW Bailey, butts heads with him. In the end, Khan steals a ship and Kirk has to go get him. It’s Pine Vs Guttenberg. The Event Film of the Summer.

I like the once a friend now a foe angle, someone who we taught and teach and coached turned their back against us because simply they do not agree or we hurt them in some way.

Humans trying to solve a problem created by insects by introducing frogs to counter problem insects, at first the solution works but the frogs take over and are worst than the insects.

Bin Laden Allegory may work if you use Khan, Khan someone humans created to further ourselves and help us advance to a higher ground but turns our to be a bigger problem than we foresaw as he goes Ronin and tries to bring down the Federation and everything he stands for.

Khan or a Klingon was a warrior/officer with no lord or master during the feudal period (2xxxx–2xxxx) of Star Trek universe. A warrior/officer became master less from the death or fall of his master, or after the loss of his master’s favor or privilege. A lordless warrior/officer, esp one whose feudal lord had been deprived of his territory.

Well I just wonder if they are going to be as tight lipped about the story for the sequel as they were for the first movie (which is understandable for the first). My fanboy reaction is I hope not and they at least give a few juicy tidbits I mean come on the cats out of the bag already lol! But Im just exited to see what Bob and Alex and now Damon come up with, Im not worried about it, and if they use Transformers 3 as a template (lots of action, humor, massive CGI visuals) I have no problem with that either, it worked well as far as box office returns eh! I believe some fans think that in order for a movie to be “deep” or “intellectual” it has to plod along at a snailes pace and have no conflict or action.

Im still trying to pull together some alternate title though that fits Star Trek and can be understood by both fans and public. So far not a whole lot is presenting itself.

i like the name only idea, as long as the big”A” is behind it and the name across the center 9 liek they did star terk in the new movie.
you notice that ib batman begins and darj knight, it was a batsignal behind and the words” begins” and ” dark knight” across the center.

I voted for Star Trek in the title, but I think the “Star Trek or No Star Trek” question is moot. I’ll be absolutely astonished if Paramount lets Mr. Abrams release the movie without Star Trek in the title. If the movie doesn’t have Star Trek in the title, it will be harder for casual viewers to find on DVD shelves in stores or libraries. With non-serial titles, you have to remember what the title was in order to find it. That problem afflicts the James Bond movies (quick! what was the name of the 007 movie between Goldeneye and The World Is Not Enough?)

To revise my comment @168 — instead of “they should bring back Kang or Kor”, I should’ve said “they *could* bring back Kang or Kor”. It’s not like it’s mandatory or anything ;-)

Just sayin’ though — in the original series, the Klingons were the main villain species much more than Khan was ever the main nemesis, so if they want bigger and better villains for Star Trek ’12 it’d be better if they’re Klingons.

I think you might be right. But the title “Star Trek” is both a blessing and a curse. Its very well known, even in the society at large, thats a plus, but also at the same time is has a stigma attached to it (nerdy, silly, boring space stuff ect…) that prevent a large number of people from sitting down for just 10 minutes to watch the new one and even finding out if they truly will or will not like it. Thats a negative. So its a catch 22, but I think its time to throw caution to the winds and just let it all hang out.

A different title would have to be seen as being Trek, but shows so sort of action or mood IMO.

I don’t think the title matters much either way. But we’ve had Star Trek in the damned titles for 40 years now. I like the James Bond thing. It says “we think you are smart enough to figure out this is a Star Trek movie without having the words in the title.”

Although, given the obstinacy of some fans on this site, whether or not the sequel is actually a Star Trek movie when it wasn’t CLEARLY identified as such in the title might cause a hell storm of debate.

I’m coming from the same background as you, with 40 years of my life invested in Trek. And loving every incarnation of Star Trek since my first exposure watching TOS syndication in the 70s.

Anyway, the point is, you may not have meant to, but your tone and your words in this setting and context were definitely of the “jumping down his throat” variety. Nothing as bad as most of the knuckleheads on these threads, but I read your post (#181) and immediately thought, “Wow. Way to jump to conclusions.” I was happy to see boborci comment on it.

Would you find it fascinating that it wasn’t a meteor that killed the Dinosaurs but a collision of planets from a rogue planet that entered our solar system millions upon millions years ago?

The reason the Dinosaurs was so much larger was because Earth was 3x the size it was today. The Dinosaurs had developed to become sentient intellectual space farring beings, known as the Draco or Saurians whos home planet was destroyed partially by the rogue celestial object.

A few Dracos/Saurians escaped to build a new home world not too far from Earth and the crew of the Enterprise will discover this on their next journey!

Star Trek has to literally go where it has never gone before.
When the show was first created our own universe was a much smaller place.
Todays ‘Trek’ should reflect this fact.
Perhaps travel to other galaxies, or dimensions.
And as we- today- fight for freedom, so too should the ‘Enterprise’
With all earned respect, I believe Gene Roddenberry wanted ‘Star Trek’ to be an anology of his dreams. Honor, and justice were common reflections of who he was, and what he wanted the show to be. Honor, justice, and freedom were evident themes in all his incarnations- if you will.
He, himself, served in the military, and was a police officer for many years.
To know ‘Star Trek’ is to know Gene-
and vice versa

I thought the whole non-Star Trek title was tried with “Enterprise.” And that didn’t work out. Though maybe the widespread popularity of the first (or 11th) movie would mean a non Star Trek:Something would work. Or they could always call the 2009 movie Star Trek 1.1, and the new one Star Trek 1.2.

If there is a villain, I hope it is not a single person villain like Khan or Nero. They weren’t alone of course on their ships, but the focus was nearly completely on those individuals and their hatred.

I would prefer a villain race, where the WHOLE race is the enemy. I really like the Gorn and the TOS episode with them. It would be interesting to see how a conflict between the Federation and the Gorn started because of a misunderstanding. It mustn’t be like in the TOS episode. The misunderstanding could be more cultural. A Federation ambassador could for example have unintentionally deeply affronted the Gorn. To prevent war or stop it after it started would be a huge effort and something which shouldn’t be so easy for Kirk. He isn’t portrayed so far as a diplomatic and calm person. He is quite brash.

First of all, great to see you here. Congratulations on the phenomenal success of your first Star Trek movie. As you can tell, there are huge numbers of fans out here who are tremendously looking forward to the next instalment of the revitalised franchise. The possibility of the sequel featuring Khan is obviously an exciting prospect for many people, although I do fully appreciate your desire to play your cards close to your chest for the time being. As you’ve said yourself earlier on this thread, you haven’t confirmed anything yet either way.

However, if it eventually turns out that Khan is indeed going to make an appearance, I’d like to respectfully offer some friendly suggestions for actors who could play him. I’m aware that this has already been politely suggested elsewhere on the internet (as a quick Google confirms), but there are a number of excellent actors from the modern Bollywood Indian film industry who may be superb as Khan. One leading man who particularly comes to mind is Hrithik Roshan; he normally plays heroic roles, but a couple of years ago he played the villain/anti-hero in an Indian action movie called “Dhoom 2″, and was so swaggeringly charismatic that he ended up completely stealing the movie from the story’s actual heroes. He won awards for his performance. Incidentally, like Khan Singh, Hrithik is from a Punjabi background himself; apparently he’s already indicated great interest in acting in Hollywood “for the right role”.

More recently, he also played the title role in the historical epic “Jodhaa-Akbar”, depicting the Mughal Emperor Akbar the Great. He won awards for his acting in this film as well, and the general verdict was that he was basically ‘born to play this role’. Hrithik’s depiction of his character’s regal dignity, “leadership presence”, extraordinary intelligence, and gravitas was absolutely superb — you could really see why Akbar would have inspired such incredible loyalty and respect — and for all these reasons he could brilliantly bring those qualities to Khan too. Especially considering that Mr Noonien Singh is supposed to have been a Caesar-style autocrat with “power over millions”, and one of the great figures of the Star Trek universe’s fictional human history (albeit one who, like Caesar, was a broadly-benevolent dictator who was later deemed to have become excessively ambitious due to being blinded by power and was therefore eventually removed). Akbar’s occasional flashes of intense rage were also very well portrayed by Hrithik, and this is another parallel with the immense anger sporadically demonstrated by the normally clear-thinking and emotionally-controlled Khan.

Apparently Hrithik is an inch or two over 6 feet tall and (as the photos from Dhoom 2 show) he’s known for having one of the Indian film industry’s most athletic physiques, so those are obviously further reasons that he could be a good choice for depicting the ‘augmented superman’ of Khan.

Another option closer to home, as I’m sure you’ve already heard/read elsewhere, may be Javier Bardem. I think he’d be a great alternative (not least because of the broad similarity of his baritone voice to Ricardo Montalban’s suave Khan), although given that Hrithik is in his mid-30s, I guess it would depend on what age you wanted your version of the defrosted Khan to be, especially in comparison with the Chris Pine version of Kirk.

Anyway, as I mentioned, these are just some friendly suggestions. Your choice of casting in your first Star Trek movie was fantastic, so I’m sure you’ll do an equally brilliant job with the sequel irrespective of whether you ultimately decide that the villain will be Khan or a completely different protagonist.

how about… ST:2 Cold Space….. all fans would know its khan related and its quite a morden way of saying a movie name just like x-men dropped x-men from the title and called the other movies X:2 united and X:3 the last stand + mission impossible did kind of the same MI:2 MI:3. short sweet simple to the point and sounds good.

Arguably, you could have STAR TREK in the title without having it in the title – as is mentioned somewhere above, I believe all the James Bond films have the “James Bond 007″ name/logo in each of the movie posters, on the DVD cases, novelizations, etc., so that’s not really an issue.

I’m also for “more perils of space exploration” with character development (watch “Galileo 7″ again) over “who’s the villain this time?” (Trelane, Khan, etc.). I’d also not necessarily want to see a straight remake of any episode — though I would love to see “The Doomsday Machine” with Tom Hanks as Decker — but elements thereof being introduced would be great (i.e., a dedicated mention of Station K-7).

That said, eps IMO worth a film run would include (not chronological):

* The Doomsday Machine
* Balance of Terror
* The ENTERPRISE Incident
* The Corbomite Maneuver
* Where No Man Has Gone Before
* The Galileo 7
* The Ultimate Computer
* The Tholian Web

Elements of several episodes could be brought in to any story. And some that would make wrap-ups for the film series (yes, “all things end”), would include “The Menagerie” or “City on the Edge of Forever”.

Expecting the goofier Treks (or their elements) to make it to the big screen would be unrealistic and, face it, there are some Treks better left to TOS. What did Fry say in that episode of “Futurama” when he was trying to get Nimoy’s head to remember the show? — “You know, “Star Trek” — 79 episodes, maybe a dozen good ones?”

Don’t get me wrong, I’m really hoping for Strange NEW Worlds, I just hope that Orci & Kurtzman “get it”, per se. I want more character development, more adventure, more “Star Trek”.

Klingons would work for me, the ones we seen in the deleted scenes on the DVD. Done like that, a mixure of the more brutish Klingon and sneaky and/or cunning Klingon is familiar but new at the same time. Same with Khan.

I find it interesting there is such concern over the title? Are peoplereally worried that in this day of media bombardment, movie goers wouldn’t know it was a Trek film without Trek in the title? Are we, as a people, really that unobservant and stupid? Ha…maybe y’all shouldn’t answer that. LOL!

On the other hand, it is rather traditional to have the Trek there.

Frankly, the title isn’t that important to me. I just want a really good film, no matter what it is called. Call it , “The Adventures of Flirty Man, Pointy Ears and the Rad Posse” or whatever, just make it rock! (And “rock” for me means characters/adventure/action AND thoughful introspection).

Ultimately, I wish that too. But it just can’t happen given the current film series. The makers of Star Trek 2009 set out their manifesto onscreen. They didn’t consider a true prequel setting to be dangerous enough. So they destroyed Vulcan to demostrate they’re not going to play by the rules. The altered backstory of James T. Kirk was another way of showing that.

Was it wrong to play to on the perception that a young Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the rest equals a prequel story set before the Original Series… with an Oscar win, and the highest gross since The Motion Picture, the ends have justified the means.

Of course, there’s an argument that goes… since the mainstream don’t care how the look between now and episodes filmed in the 60’s, was consistant and that they regarded the end result as an origin story in which nobody main character was likely to suddenly be killed off… they may as well tried to fill in the blanks of TOS history.

Anthony, I kinda like that idea of dropping ‘Star Trek’ from the title. After eleven movies and five TV series (six, if you want to split hairs and count TAS), Trek HAS been in the title long enough – I don’t think anyone is going to be misled into buying a ticket for ‘Cold, Cold Space’ (or whatever it ends up being called), thinking they’re going into the theater to see Ghostbusters III or the next Die Hard movie. Giving the title format a face lift is as fair game as anything else that’s been done so far. In fact, it may even draw in a few people out there who are a little put off Trekworld and everything in it, but would give a fair shake to a movie title referencing the plot, and not when/where it takes place.

299. Ralph F… “Arguably, you could have STAR TREK in the title without having it in the title – as is mentioned somewhere above, I believe all the James Bond films have the “James Bond 007″ name/logo in each of the movie posters, on the DVD cases, novelizations, etc., so that’s not really an issue.”

It is still an issue because even though they have 007 somewhere on the cover, it isn’t in the title and stores shelve movies by their title. Occasionally, stores will group all the series movies together, but from what I’ve seen that’s not the case for James Bond movies at Best Buy, WalMart, Hastings, what-have-you. “Tomorrow Never Dies” is on the shelves in the T’s, not under J or zero.

#307, I totally agree with you on this. It’s all about the marketing and for all the recent success, Star Trek is NOT Batman. Period. Treating similarly would be a mistake in this nascent stage.

Star Trek did well, mainly in the US, but not as well as it could have. Moreover, its track record outside the US is pretty pathetic. People around here have been pushing the idea that the impact of the DVD, PPV and ultimately cable TV, will bring in a new audience before the next film debuts (which considering the 3 year window allows plenty of time for that to happen).

However, as you point out, if you start playing fast and loose, or just a little too cool, with the title, there is a risk, however slight, of loosing the fragile gains made in the franchise awareness with the last movie.

I don’t buy into the notion that the title “Star Trek” kept people away from the theaters and rentals because of poor associations with the franchise. Many Europeans in particular weighed in that the movie was poorly marketed by Paramount in foreign markets, receiving little of the attention and hype we were bombarded with in the US, which is the most likely reason it faired so badly overseas, not because it was called Star Trek.

And, of course, Star Trek was NO Star Wars, or Avatar, or even Iron Man. There are no mainstream stars like Robert Downey Jr., or a deceased Heath Ledger to drive a mainstream audience. All they have going for them right now is franchise name recognition. Paramount’s goal is to maintain that good association. And anybody who thinks Star Trek XII will pull a Dark Knight or even Transformers box office surge is fooling themselves. Star Trek has a long way to go toward building that kind of mainstream fanbase, so as you so astutely point out, Paramount is going to want to keep the Star Trek name front and center, and easy to find for the ancillary market upon whom they are likely counting on to increase brand awareness and drive future feature ticket sales.

Ergo, I seriously doubt the movie will be called anything else but “Star Trek”, however else it is distinguished. It strikes me that the only people here pushing for dropping the brand name from the title are long time fans who don’t need words at all to convey the content – exactly the same group who are going to see the next movie no matter what it’s called. All the more reason for Paramount to ensure everybody else knows exactly what’s showing at the local cineplex, especially overseas.

If there are only three years difference between Kirk and Spock, with Spock being the elder (supported by previously established events). How old does that make Spock in the original pilot episode “The Cage”?
I seem to recall a line in the two part TOS episode “The Menagerie” about it being fifteen years ago, so that would have made Spock around 22 years old. That seems a bit young to have the position he had on board Pike’s Enterprise….

Also a question to Bob Orci, I believe you got the year of Kirk’s birth “correct” according to previously established canon (2233). Have you kept the three year gap between Kirk and Spock?

Another question to Bob, you have obviously de-aged the Enterprise as it is brand new in the 2009 ST film. I was wondering what the reasoning behind that was. Why would the incursion of Nero into the time-line delay the building of the Enterprise by so many years?

I would like to add my voice to those that do not want to see a villain in the next ST movie. Star Trek is bigger than that and deserves better. But just my opinion of course.

More thoughts, in closing… :-)

More character moments needed for the next movie. More of the Kirk/Spock/McCoy triangle, lots more of Karl Urban and Simon Pegg. But please cut well back on the comic relief usage of Scotty. The humour should come out of the situation and not be forced. After all he is pretty much the best engineer in the fleet. Please no Keenser, unless he also has his comic relief use cut well down. Star Trek is not a comedy but can have comedic moments.

Star Trek (I believe) is best suited to a television environment where bigger, deeper stories can be told over a multiple episode arc, not where things have to be wrapped up in 2-2.5 hours of screen time.

Sorry, but I rant because I care, Star Trek has been a big part of my life for these past forty years. Much to my family’s bemusement at times.

313. I imagine somebody essential to the designing the Constitution class starship, died aboard the U.S.S. Kelvin. That delayed the design getting off the drawing board and indeed, why it isn’t exactly the same.

Add to that, some possible conflict Starfleet engaged in after the inquest to its destruction. The Romulans are exposed in 2233 aren’t they, thanks to evidence Nero left behind… instead of 2266, when the prime universe Enterprise first caught sight of that race. The Romulans deny all knowledge of destroying a Federation starship… but then from the Federation’s point of view, they would wouldn’t they? An old wound is reopened for Earth too, since they engaged in a conflict with the race, back in Admiral Archer’s day.

So let’s say they were a bit occupied and that’s why the NCC-1701 was launched in 2258, instead of 2245.

Personally, I hope I’m right about some of this and we get to see some it expanded upon, to show how differently this timeline is. The impact of knowing who the Romulans are earlier than in the Prime. Starfleet seems to be a more warlike organisation because of that somehow… with Pike seeming to know about Romulus and the threat they pose. Something almost impossible to imagine in the Original Series.

I’d say this and the aftermath of Vulcan’s destruction, are what any sequel should cover. Or else, it’s a bit of wasted opportunity changing so much, without showing consequences to this new iteration of the Star Trek Universe and you may as well have stuck ridgedly to filling in the gaps between ENT and TOS.

CPike, not sure about To Boldly Blow… which is what it would get monickered by fandom if it blew…

On a silly note, “Star To The Trek: The Wrizzle of Khanizzle” works. Especially with Zombies.

But seriously, I’d still like to see an alternate universe pick up of the Botany Bay, and with McGivers not on this earlier year Enterprise, it turns out quite differently when she’s not there to suggest powering up ol’ Singh Noonien first. Instead, we get Joachim/Joaquin. Or we get the Klingons finding that ship first, with their attack on the Federation due to the Narada incursion. And of course the Klingons doing a DNA scan will immediately understand the significance of the Augment DNA they see in Khan. The Empire needs an Emperor (since we know at this time they don’t have one!!) Emperor Khan I of Kronos, now there’s a villain, but in the vein of Napoleon, the way Khan in Space Seed was intended.

Something near the Laurentian System, whatever (Star Trek ’09 set this location up: it should get followed up on!!).

Or something like The Good, The Mad and The Ugly. At the Laurentian System, the fleet converges to fight off the Klingon armada. Kirk and Spock must deal with the three captains Pike [or Decker] (good), Garth (mad), and Kor (ugly), each with different m.o. Pike is onboard the Enterprise to seek out where the heck Garth has taken the fleet and why he’s gone mad. Of course, it’s because he’s killed a man.. put a phaser by at his head, pulled the trigger now he’s dead. Anyway… if only the pace of the movie matched Bohemian Rhapsody:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BoRhap_in_Audacity.png

Well. As a writer (Well, an amateur script writer), I like putting myself though “exercises” to test me so I can learn from how well or badly they work. So, as one of those exercises, I’ll give a thougt on the shape of the title myself and try to reason it. (Yet, I’m the worst man in the world when it comes to titles. Tell me what you think of the idea, but ignore the examples)

I fully agree that the classik Kirk movies had their own shape (Star Trek-roman number-evocative sentence), and so did the TNG movies (Star trek-colon-evocative word). It would be great if the new era has it’s own way to shape the titles, recognizable from the others.

Under that assumption, the already released first movie is supposed to already have the new shape. So, I’ll try to find what that shape was, and how it is different than the previous ones. And I come up with this:

The first movie of the new era, is called Star Trek because that’s what they are all doing (crewmen, badguys and even Spock), journeying through the stars for diferent reasons. The movie deals with why, how, and the consecuences of that decission.

So, maybe the new title should be a sentence or concept in the same road, saying what action or purpose all the main characters have in common in the story or what they are all looking for (Instead of a specific evocative sentence derived from the tale itself).

Let’s see if I’m able to explain myself better looking for examples of how that could be done with the already existing movies. As I said, I’m the worst tittle maker in the planet. Ignore the examples but give a thought to the process.

(I) RETURN (V-GER returns to earth, Kirk, Spock and Bones return to the Enterprise, Decker will not return for the mission)

(II) CONSEQUENCES (of Kirk having a son, of The Genesis Project, of Kirk stranding Khan at the planet)

(III) DEATH (Spock is dead, The genesis planet dies, The enterprise dies)

(IV) PROTECTION (Earth from the probe, the whales)

(V) QUEST (For God, for a common pacefull place… this one is damn hard)

(VI) BETRAYAL (Spock “betrays” Kirk making him go into a mission without asking him. Someone betrays and kills the Klingon dude, The chapechanging girl betrays Kirk)

(VII) LOST (The Ent-B survivors without the Nexus, Picard’s family, Kirk, the Enterprise D)

(IX) AGAINST YOUR OWN (Which works for the Enterprise crew and for the bad wrinkly dudes)

(X) OURSELVES (Marriage, brothers, and a bad guy who is the same person as the good guy)

(XI) STAR TREK (Why they want to do it, how they do it, and the consecuences of it. And we see both inmediate consecuences and long term consecuences ranging 200 years or so. quite a good essay for a prequel, or as analysis of the saga itself)

(XII) ? What they all have in common on this one? What makes them feel safe? Hatred? Love? A tribble infestation?

@320 Anything to make the Commander previously portrayed by Mark Lenard now appear as Kirk’s ally would truly evoke the final script lines of Balance of Terror. And a great chance to have Eric Bana portray the Romulan Commander. With hair, of course! Who’s not to say he’s Nero’s ancestor.

IF the net result of Star Trek Mark Two is a Romulan-Federation Alliance, then that’s an interesting launching point for future adventures.

@321 Klingons have human augment DNA in their very essence. (Plus, from the TNG episode, we’re all the spawn of that ancient race of old ones.) They’d scan Klan Khan and quickly confirm the kinship Klingons have with Khan. They might at first be confused and not know who that Khan’s a human per se. Why, he very well could be a student somehow of the Klingon Empire (could there have been visits before Klaang, methinks?) since he knows Klingon proverbs. He may say he is the messiah promised by Kahless.

They should not go with “The Dark Night” route. Remember what happened when they done that before with Enterprise? I did not do well and they changed it to Star Trek: Enterprise. They should stick with something that is known in the past works. they should do something with the Klingons that ties in with the last movie. Like maybe the Klingons are misinformed that the Federation had something to do with Nero’s escape from Ruapente. Or the Klingons see the destruction of Nero and is upset with that since Nero was their prisoner and the ship was their prize to backward engineer the advance tech on the ship.

“The second movie is about how does the team now that they are on their journey, live together as a family” – Kurtzman

This is promising. Let’s not see Earth this time! We saw the TOS crew on Earth in all 6 of their movies! But Earth was hardly seen at all in the series beacuse they were out in the unknown, so leave it out this time.

I’m afraid you’re on a crusade that has nowhere to go. You may not be alone, but you’re spinning your wheels. The bottom line is that the Trek you want to hang onto will have to be found on dvds of TOS, TNG, etc. The new Trek is going to be different, and that’s just the way it is. I, for one, do not think anything is being sacrificed simply because the movie attempted to appeal to a wider audience than hard-core Trekkies.
Unless one is making a fan-film, or an art-film, or an entirely personal film, ALL movies are made by motion-picture studios that intend to make lots of $$$ so they can keep making movies. If Paramount makes a Star Trek film that is only going to make guys like you happy (no offense intended), such a film would unlikely recover its cost, nevermind make a profit. Just because a studio wants to make a profit does not make them part of an evil empire. To criticize them for making a movie to appeal to the so-called “mainstream” is like criticizing a baseball player for trying to hit a home run. In other words, this is simply what they do.
As I’ve said before, I started watching Trek in 1966, and I’ve watched every episode of every series, and every film, so I’m as Trekkie as they come. But EVERYTHING must change. If we were still watching Buck Rogers films with spaceships on strings, well…. we wouldn’t be watching!
I make no apologies at all for thinking what Orci & Kurtzman did to “re-vitalize” Star Trek was bold and innovative, when we could have gotten more same-old Yawn Trek. The franchise was dying a slow death. When “Best of Both Worlds – pt 1″ came out, TNG’s viewership was at an all-time high. Why? Cos it was GREAT. Why didn’t NEM do such good business? Cos it wasn’t GREAT. The industry is based on numbers, and when something is great, the numbers reflect it. When it’s not so great, the numbers reflect it. Other than someone’s personal, subjective evaluation of what they like or don’t like, there is no other way for the industry to determine what is good or bad than by the numbers. The numbers for Trek09 were impressive, and the studio isn’t about to argue with anyone over that.
And, neill, I will agree with you that we don’t need a rehash of Khan, either.

I hope next time, Bob and J.J Abrams create and market the sequel for people who enjoy intelligent and thoughtful, yet exciting, sci-fi drama. The new movie was fun and great on a lot of levels, but I believe that marketing a Trek movie to the mainstream crowd is the wrong approach.
Because the “mainstream” includes morons who consider crap like “Jersey Shore”, “The Hills” and “American Idol” as classic t.v shows!

I say market the film toward the mainstream SCI-FI and fantasy crowd, folks who aren’t fans of Trek necessarily, but do enjoy “Lord Of The Rings”, “Star Wars”, “District 9″, “2001: A Space Odyssey”, etc. And, of course, let’s not forget the Trekkies! :-)

Just wait ’til this team gets their trilogy/quadrilogy/whatever-they-stick-around-for out of their system, and I’d say there’s at least a 33% chance the next torch-bearers will return to the original Trek universe.

In the meantime, the original universe continues to live on where it counts.

#342: “If Paramount makes a Star Trek film that is only going to make guys like you happy (no offense intended), such a film would unlikely recover its cost, nevermind make a profit. ”

Indeed, but I don’t think anyone here wants to see a Star Trek film that (as you put it) _only_ makes guys like neill happy. We want to see EXCELLENT Star Trek cinema, that rocks the planet down.

We see the qualities we crave in _other_ films, other films making HUGE BANK. These other films remind us of how good Star Trek could have been, with courage and skill. And far from scattering crumbs to pauper art-film makers, they’re making HUGE BANK.

But you’re right … if a film were made that _only_ made guys like neill happy, that’d be a lose-lose-lose-lose. But who wants that? I don’t think anyone does. I don’t think neill does.

#347 Exactly my point, Harry. It would have to be new characters, and I for one will pass on that. We’ve had 5 different crews already. Going back to TOS characters was the smartest thing Paramount could have done.

You know what I want? All I want is a Star Trek movie (and yes that means Kirk, Spock and McCoy!)

What I dread is getting a movie ***about*** Star Trek. I know there’s a type of fan that is obsessed with the minutest details of the Star Trek universe, but I’m not.

All I ask is for the story of a dedicated crew of a starship going into space and having a great adventure. It shouldn’t particularly matter whether Vulcan’s around or not, whether Spock Prime founded a colony or what the Klingons look like. Star Trek was principally about being ‘out there’, facing the unknown and carrying your beliefs with you but willing to have them challenged.

It ought to be possible to make Star Trek 2 an original story that could be set in either version of history. I can live with the changes in design and so on. A 2012 movie is hardly going to look like a 1966 TV episode. I never cared about an explanation for bumpy-headed Klingons, for example. I simply assumed they had a bigger make-up budget for TMP!

End of the day, guys, I’m happy with a good story, good dialogue and good characters. I don’t need it to tie in endlessly with nerd continuity. ST09 set things up with a relatively straightforward (pun possibly intended!) film rearranging the furniture. I don’t need reminding about what it was like before. Just take us on a ride somewhere new.

And I don’t even mind a revamped Khan, to be honest, as long as something new is done with him that doesn’t refer back to the original version. Surprise me! :)

Heroic protagonists, for starters. I certainly hope you don’t need someone else to make you a list of successful movies where the protagonists are heroic (if so, get thee to Google or IMDB or somesuch).

#352 … Dodgy answer. No, I don’t need Google’s help. You claim you’re “craving” qualities from films making “HUGE BANK,” but can’t cite examples? I’d like to know what you’re referring to so I can compare said films to Star Trek.

Probably not, but isn’t it baffling that people attach so much importance to it? I mean, I know we all have our own Really Very Important Thing That Is Not Trivial To Me and all that (like the people who go on about the brewery, or whatever), but I’m a bit surprised to find out how many people attach that importance to the title :/

again i ask you to calm down and stop throwing around the hyperbole and stop feeling like some kind of victim. I am others who write for this site love ALL trek, including the Berman era as do many if not most visitors. So please stop with the “poor me’ thing and saying this site ‘hates x’ etc….and this thing where you feel you need to post the same things over and over and over to push your point of view. You are not alone, therefore you dont need to post 40 times in a thread (which you are approaching in this thread)

Not a bad decision per se, just not what an engine room would/should look like. Looks too much like what it is: a beer factory. Luckily, not a lot of time was spent there during the film.

“Its a great film but this site does make it a crime that I like a lot of the Berman era over it. Is this wrong of me?”

I don’t recall Anthony issuing arrest warrants to those who liked the previous Star Trek over the new version. I don’t know of any rules prohibiting you from enjoying your favorite Trek. You seem to be pretty paranoid on a site that should be about fun. Its all in your head. No matter how many times you repeat yourself, it doesn’t make your statement true.

Bob has the upmost respect for previous Trek and the movie he wrote shows that. And the way it was written preserves Old Trek. So that “new” Star Trek 2 doesn’t erase “classic” Star Trek II. J.J Trek runs parellel to Prime Trek, not over it.

The reason that things are called JJTrek, Abramstrek, Abramsverse or Abramsprise is the agressive marketing campaign, I guess. It tried so hard to differentiate itself from the “old” Star Trek that it became “Abramstrek”. Berman never tried to sell TNG, DS9, VOY or ENT as “This is not your father’s Star Trek”. When I watch an episode of Voyager (even if it is as bad as “Threshold”) it just feels like it belongs to the same fictional universe as an episode of TOS.

Trek 09 was an enjoyable fun ride, and it did have Leonard Nimoy, but it just didn’t feel right.

@379 If Berman was true to “Roddenberry’s Vision” DS9 would never have been made. And if TNG had followed “Roddenberry’s Vision” the marked improvement in watchability from season 3 forward wouldn’t have happened. . .Gene had a vision, but a lot of people who worked on later Treks will admit that at times it had a stifling effect on Star Trek. . . so, maybe it is time to go in a different direction. . .

Hey Bob, I don’t think this has been done in Star Trek before, and I think it would be cool.

You know how the title of a movie or story is often mentioned in the dialogue? I would like to hear the words “star trek” mentioned if it fits in with the story.

For example, lets say you guys are thinking that maybe the five year mission will begin after the sequel. Then it would be a cool way to end the sequel with pending orders for a “star trek” that Kirk will be asked to command.

Another special request. I’ve mentioned this before. A brief scene where Uhura sings a song to the TOS theme. If it fits in with a resolution to Spock/Uhura, for instance, it might be sad/romantic, and to hear a romantically toned Giacchino rendition of the TOS theme backing her up could be a powerful moment if done right.

#349, “Exactly my point, Harry. It would have to be new characters, and I for one will pass on that. We’ve had 5 different crews already. Going back to TOS characters was the smartest thing Paramount could have done.”

And they said the universe was a big place.

If I may speak on behalf of S. John Ross and Harry Balls, first I don’t think John meant new characters, I think he meant a return to previous canon. After all, Chris Pine will not play Kirk for the rest of his life as Shatner has made a career out of doing. Neither will Zachary Quinto. They’ll probably do 3 films, then Paramount will have to find a new Kirk and Spock. I seriously doubt JJ would be interested in producing much longer than that either. What better way to explain the new cast than to go back to Prime universe? With Harry, I may have missed the mark, but he may have been referring to the original cast of Nimoy, Shatner, Stewart, et al.

Either way, there is no reason they couldn’t re-imagine The Next generation, or Deep Space 9, Voyager, or even Enterprise. None of which were bad concepts, but often poorly executed. And I really don’t see the problem with doing a Prime universe centered around Christopher Pike and Number One, and yes – another crew!

And I’ve seen enough praise around here about Captain Robau and George Kirk to know that yet another crew done properly would definitely be welcome. That would be the easiest way to return to the Prime universe and maintain continuity with the alternate universe without introducing a whole new set of actors as the 7 main characters within less than a decade.

So I don’t see automatically dismissing the idea simply because S. John Ross proposed it. YOU may have seen 5 different crews already, but the audience Paramount is going after hasn’t, any more than they have seen a movie featuring a character named Khan. Frankly the biggest issue with doing it will be how much time elapses between the last picture the current cast does and the next film without them premiers. Certainly movie audiences are OK with different actors playing Batman, the Hulk, Superman and so forth. It remains to be seen if the same will work with Star Trek. But certainly the Superhero universe is yet another example of many different characters being spun-off from the same basic idea, so why should Star Trek be limited by it?

#383: “I would like to hear the words “star trek” mentioned if it fits in with the story.”

Didnt they already do that joke in one of the TNG movies?

#385: “If I may speak on behalf of S. John Ross and Harry Balls, first I don’t think John meant new characters, I think he meant a return to previous canon.”

Yeah … I’ve made no comment in this thread on the _crews_ at all, just on the universes (I personally try to avoid the word “canon” unless I’m being paid to use it … it makes me giggle and is made of silly things).

“So I don’t see automatically dismissing the idea simply because S. John Ross proposed it.”

I honestly didn’t mean to propose any ideas at all :) Just predicting, rather, that the next team are likely to feel no more beholden to _this_ team’s decisions than this team does any prior team’s. Or words to that effect, only sensible.

I’d personally love to see new movies about the real McCoy (and his Vulcan friend Spock, and their punchy sidekick the other guy) with them played by all-new actors … and that’s one of several possible paths I can see the movie tie-in franchise product thingy taking after these guys are done leaving their mark on the Star Trek hydrant.

Well the polls are showing that a new Trek related title is in the lead by 53% right now. I like the idea actually, its something different and new. But I wouldnt mind either way, Star Trek in the title or not, just happy the movie is being made.

OH YEA AND KEEP STAR TREK IN THE TITLE, JUST BECAUSE IT IS A FAD WITH MOVIES DOES NOT MEAN STAR TREK HAS TO CATER EVERYTHING TO EVERYONE. FINE IT RECEIVED A REBOOT, BUT “STAR TREK” STAYS IN THE MOVIE TITLE NOW AND FOREVER. STAR TREK IS NOT A SHEEP, ITS ALREADY FOLLOWED IN THE REBOOT FOOTSTEPS THAT IS THE CURRENT FAD IN HOLLYWOOD, AND THATS FINE AND THERE IS A LINE. CASE IN POINT, ENTERPRISE DID IT AND THEN IT WAS CHANGED TO STAR TREK ENTERPRISE.

The question also arises how much must you change something? Its no so much changing I have a problem with, it following a fad which is what the reboot is which is what leaving ‘Star Trek’ out of the title would be. Don’t confuse following a fad with ‘making a change for the better.’ Head in the clouds?

The “Star Trek” words in the title don’t need to be part of the title itself. They are the saga.

Like in the Starwars movies, which have their own title separated from the saga name in a logo.

They can be named and promoted in any way knowing they are Star Trek movies if the title is presented in all promotional material with the “Star Trek” words in logo form instead of included in the title itself.

It is “The empire Strikes Back” Not “STAR WARS – The Empire Strikes Back”, but we allways knew it was a Star Wars movie because the title allwas was wrapping the “STAR WARS logo including the words.

I agree, the opening was epic, the way the music came in with the ticking sound (a very familiar Wrath of Khan sound) then the powerful music and the way the STAR TREK letter appeared in the TOS style font and the light glaming across it with those drums gave me a level of excitement and pride which was off the charts. It was suck an impact I rewind it once or twice whenever I watch the movie by myself, lol not going to subject other to the rewinds but it is just so damn epic, its like Star Treks epic opening the way Star Wars has its opening. The Star Wars openings are a bit dated now, I don’t feel pride, its like LOTR in space.

I would Alex and Bob like them to bring in an alien or villain that has never been seen or thought of. I want something that will make my head explode or something that you cant wrap your head around at first.

406. CHADWICK WANTS BIG BATTLE SCENES WITH MANY SHIPS AND MANY PEOPLE VAPORIZED BY PHASERS!!!!! - June 29, 2010

One huge element people forget is the element in Star Trek VI The Undiscovered Country which is one reason why it is my favorite Star Trek movie. Star Trek VI did what no trek movie has done before, a conspiracy. People talk villain or no villain but a conspiracy between Klingons, Federation, Romulans, three factions which hate each other so much they are willing to conspire with each other, and in the end the Kirk has a revelation about his own prejudices. There is also a Klingon ship which can fire a weapon while cloaked, they build a heat seeking torpedo, the beginnings of what will lead to the Khitomer accords, “To be or not to be” in Klingon, Star Fleet crew murder the Klingon Chancellor, Kirk and McCoy go to jail, Kirk kicks a guy in the cockknee, a shapeshifter gets vaporized (which in my opinion is an underused element in Star Trek.) So how is Star Trek VI not the best movie? Ok in Star Trek IV there was the probe, but really humans and the probe share the role of “villain” but not typical, it was a unique idea. There are also many reasons you could argue why General Chang was NOT a villain in Star Trek VI. He was just a person carrying out his role as a small part in a much larger beast. If Chang is the villain in Star Trek VI then so is Lieutenant Valeris, Admiral Cartwright, Romulan Ambassador Nanclus, and Rene Auberjonois’ character Colonel West. Star Trek VI had that element, a conspiracy which was unexpected, that is why its so entertaining, so involving, the movie just always sucks me in. So one does not just have to consider villain or no villain, you could think multiple smaller scale villains which equate to something much bigger. Or no villain at all and keep it a problem solving movie. But my point is the galactic conspiracy was fun and fresh.

I thought JJ Abrams was considered a ‘genius’ ( I don’t know why) because he innovating new and fresh ideas but not to copy what other mainstream things are doing. To me if it were the later he be more a hack than a genius.

I didn’t mind the reimagined Cocharane in First Contact, it made sense. It was a bout people meeting their hero and turning out to be not the way they thought they were. Also the Cochrane from Metamorphasis is an older Cochrane and I think post first contact he changed.

If I “we” were Borg would you really time travel to the past(alternate reality) and take a planet away from the Humans? Makes us Humans so self centered eh? Borg being so intelligent could have sent 10 cubes with 5 super cubes as tanks and just be done with the sol system.

A better Borg movie would have been to bring back Locutus somehow and make it grand, the opening battle was anti climatic and the rest of the film was about some drunk guy who invented warp drive and how the Borg wants to take over the Enterprise, while Picard and a soldier from that time period try to stop them.

The whole Borg Queen was a cop out, an excuse to have a central villain, should have just dealth with Picard being kidnapped or reactivated somehow and becoming Locutus again or a clone of Locutus something like that.

I am still waiting for a Q movie similar to the final episode, all good things…

Wouldn’t it be cool to see Pine and crew travel forwards and backwards through time and we get to see all these cool set pieces? Uniforms, ships, different regions of the world past, present, future, too bad RDM and Bragga over used time travel.

Okay, further to my casting suggestions for Khan in #295 above (Khan is Indian, and there are currently some brilliant & extremely charismatic actors in India who would be perfect for the role), I have some ideas for the next couple of films. Bob Orci & co have mentioned that they already have a few things in mind so the following may be moot, but anyway…

Assuming that it’s eventually decided that Khan will indeed be the villain:

– The new Enterprise crew stumble across the Botany Bay and defrost Khan several years earlier than they did in TOS.
– The citizens of the Federation (not to mention the military too) are still shaken and traumatised due to the recent destruction of Vulcan. (Their equivalent of 9/11, basically).
– Given the scale of what has occurred, people are looking for ‘strong leadership’, and they feel that the present Federation government has utterly failed, since it wasn’t even able to protect the Vulcans, a major group in the Federation from one of its core, founding worlds.
– Khan sees this as his ‘big chance’ and effectively seizes power — but has the support of the majority of the Federation’s democratic population, due to his charisma and proven leadership qualities, and his demagogic ability to exploit the traumatised populace’s fears and hopes. (Some historical precedents such as Caesar, along with certain figures from pre-WW2 Europe).
– The Enterprise crew and others in Starfleet have concerns about Khan, but they are ignored & marginalised, especially due to the enormous support Khan has amongst the Federation’s citizens and the more warlike elements of Starfleet. Throw in an optional reference to Section 31 here too if desired.
– For a while, Khan does an enormous amount of good, including revitalising the Federation, giving the citizens the safety & strength they desire, performing a huge level of humanitarian work etc.
– However, as Trekkies familiar with Khan will know, “superior abilities can breed superior ambition”, and eventually Khan’s egotism and megalomaniac tendencies get the better of him. Cue the beginning of his downfall, coupled with Khan himself attempting to strengthen & consolidate his grip on power as he becomes increasingly intoxicated and corrupted by it all over again.
– Despite what is happening, Khan still enjoys tremendous support. The Federation & Starfleet split into pro- and anti-Khan factions, spiralling to civil war. The Enterprise crew and others like them are condemned as traitors by Khan’s administration and his supporters in Starfleet.
– Kirk & co eventually find some way to defeat Khan and save the day. (Optional: They do so with Klingon assistance, thereby accelerating the formation of the Federation’s formal alliance with the Klingon Empire by a century. The complicating factor, of course, is that the Klingons could refuse to help due to seeing the internal conflict with Khan as their own ‘divide and rule’ opportunity to annex the Federation themselves once the dust has settled; but perhaps Kirk & co could convince them that it’s in their own best interests to oppose Khan, considering his expansionist ambitions and his extraordinary aptitude as a military and political leader).

This could be too much for a single movie, so a trilogy might be another option; part 1 focusing on Khan’s rise to power; part 2 focusing on what he does to the Federation, along with the Enterprise crew’s mounting concerns and marginalisation; and part 3 focusing on the civil war. This is of course assuming that Bob Orci and his colleagues actually want a three-part story arc, rather than each impending sequel being a standalone movie.

Just an idea; given the results of Khan’s lust for power over other people when he was originally on Earth (according to Trek canon), you can imagine what he would do if he thought he had the chance to rule the entire Federation.

If you really wanted the next couple of Trek movies to be “The Dark Knight” to Star Trek I’s “Batman Begins” (or, for example, the later seasons of the brilliant DS9 compared to its earlier seasons) in terms of a considerably darker tone and taking the psychological complexity to a whole new level, this could definitely be one way to achieve that.

I think that they should slightly retcon Khan and have him be a a modern day islamic terrorist (An Bin Laden type) who was messing with Eugnenics… keep the rest of his story with suspended animation etc the same. That will give the new Star Trek film a relivant storyline.

I think as others have said that the mainstream, especially overseas, may not identify the film as Trek without the name in the title – best to keep it identifiable. The logo is as identifiable as SW with the wonderful TOS font, and should now be retained as (appears to be happening) throughout all the franchise products.

And I’m sure it would NOT make a WORSE movie simply by having a proper stunning engineering set or CG extension, and an E refit making her less wierd looking…?

“I think that they should slightly retcon Khan and have him be a a modern day islamic terrorist (An Bin Laden type) who was messing with Eugnenics”

That would be more than a little tricky…considering that Khan (despite his first name) was not actually from a Muslim background.

His full name was Khan Noonien Singh, and he’s supposed to be an Indian Punjabi, originally a Sikh. He ends up being a “non-practising Sikh”, of course. But still not “Islamic” or anything related to jihads etc — so it would require more than “slight” retconning; his entire background and ancestry would have to be completely changed.

Hey Bob, I don’t think this has been done in Star Trek before, and I think it would be cool.

You know how the title of a movie or story is often mentioned in the dialogue? I would like to hear the words “star trek” mentioned if it fits in with the story.

For example, lets say you guys are thinking that maybe the five year mission will begin after the sequel. Then it would be a cool way to end the sequel with pending orders for a “star trek” that Kirk will be asked to command.
”

@420 Well, an appopriate post for post 420. I’m sure Stephen “Noonien” King would laugh at that one. Heck, I’d love to see his take on a space-going adventure. Always thought elements of The Langoliers film felt a tad like a TOS episode.

#386 “I’d personally love to see new movies about the real McCoy (and his Vulcan friend Spock, and their punchy sidekick the other guy) with them played by all-new actors … and that’s one of several possible paths I can see the movie tie-in franchise product thingy taking…”

Huh? So you’re saying that after they stop making movies with the new Kirk, Spock and McCoy, you hope they’ll start making movies with a new Kirk, Spock and McCoy, only difference being these even newer versions will be in the “prime” universe? Oh please. We had 40 years in that universe. We know the fates of those characters. What would be the point? Let it go, people. :)

Bob
No real specfics here. But if some of the consquences of the events from the first movie were to be witnessed or simply alluded to in the second, it would not only lend weight to the sequel, but retroactively to the first (ie Vulcan, Kirk’s rapid promotion, the loss of starships and crew, relations with the Klingons/Romulans) answering those who thought the pace of the picture stretched the plot thin or wanted more chracters development.

Wouldn’t mind seeing a lesser opponent such as Harry Mudd or Cyrano Jones reinvented. No Khan. Okay, it’s a bit of a list, I’ll grant you.

#424, “We had 40 years in that universe. We know the fates of those characters. What would be the point? Let it go, people.”

Exactly MY point. “We had”. Star Trek didn’t make almost $400 million worldwide because all the original fans who had given up on Star Trek after Nemesis (or perhaps Star Trek V), overran the multiplexes to see a fresh original story.

JJ & Co. want new blood. YOU may have seen everything done in the Prime universe, but the audiences and fans Paramount wants have NEVER seen them, nor movies about characters named Khan and Harry Mudd. Whatever will you do if the next movie turns out to be a remake of Space Seed? Are you telling me the story is any less tired to you simply because it may pan out differently? For old fans, Khan is done to death – but then this isn’t your father’s Star Trek (and hint hint, they are referring to YOU, not YOUR father).

And YES, when the current actors playing Kirk, Spock & McCoy don’t renew their contracts after the third movie, then they will have to be recast with NEW actors. When that happens the new team can do anything they want, including going back to a universe that only had 85 stories told about it anyway, and which some producers may find far more interesting than the current universe when all is said and done. As for the other 4 spin-offs, we don’t know the fates of any of those characters either,and even if YOU think you do, none of the brand-new audiences know ANYTHING about it. It’s clear you don’t care for The Next Generation, or the others … but there’s no reason they can’t be recast and re-invented to made just as exciting, regardless of which universe they inhabit.

And this idea that the “Supreme Court” has shipped that WE already know the fates of the Prime universe characters doesn’t really float. FIrst they are reviving the franchise for new fans, and come on, you can’t exactly kill Kirk Spock or McCoy anyway or it’s no longer Star Trek. Even the Prime universe had sense enough not to do that. Honestly, how many iconic aspects of the series can they destroy before it stops being Star Trek? They’ve already blown up Vulcan, what’s next?

Besides, you’re putting words in S. John Ross’s, er, fingers. If anyone should let it go, it’s you. You seem to have more of an axe to grind with him than addressing the realities of what must inevitably happen once the current cast departs in the very near future.

#427 “When that happens the new team can do anything they want, including going back to a universe that only had 85 stories told about it anyway, and which some producers may find far more interesting than the current universe when all is said and done.”

Sounds like you have an axe to grind, against change. I simply fail to see the logic in returning to the prime universe with new actors as Kirk & Spock. What for, so old fans could sleep comfy at night knowing this is the exact same Kirk and Spock they’ve always known? Would the uniforms and sets have to match those seen in TOS? Would the writers have to take pains not to contradict anything we saw in those previous 85 stories? Would we watch each new episode knowing that Kirk is going to fall off a rock and die someday? The desire to be free of those restrictions is exactly why the new universe was created in the first place. This happens a lot in long running fiction franchises, and in this case, it’s a good thing.

I’m just happy we’re getting new adventures with my favorite characters. Who cares which “universe” they’re in? Only extreme fanboys and girls care about such a distinction. Most people, like me, just want good stories.

I was just happy that Orci & Kurtzman & Abrams and the gang made a good movie from my beloved old “Star Trek,” you know? I’d like them to make another good movie. And if it happens to give a little more love to the holy triumvirate of Kirk-Spock-McCoy, I’ll be even happier.

I really wish they would bring a more adult version of trek…. in ambience, at least… I really wish to go and see a movie that has the quality and feel of a well polished story like TWOK, Hunt for Red October, or even Avatar. 13 year old boys don’t spend a lot of money, so lets stop catering to them. A compelling storyline will would do wonders. Forget the past… elevate trek to something a little higher brow. And yes, I am a Ron Moore fan.

Watched Deliverance last night. Different kindcof movie, granted. There were questions unanswered. Thought it only added to the experience. Today’s audience needs everything explained, but this is an example where the vagueness worked. And though nothing happens as bad as the loss of an entitre world, the audience is shocked because they are allowed to make an emtional investment in it. I don’t necessarily have a problem with the destruction of Vulcan among other things, just let us feel it longer. The end of Jaws was another example. The loss of one guy and a shark, but afterwards it was what you remembered. Today that would be a ten second scene and easily forgotten. By the way I loved the opening scene of Star Trek. More of that please.

I agree with you 100%. Altering the Kirk/Spock/McCoy universe was, IMO, a brilliant way to bring those characters back but not have them repeat everything they’ve already done… and if they didn’t repeat everything the same way, some people would still be moaning about canon.
The problem some people have, as I see it, is they do not feel the new team has done justice to Star Trek. They began complaining when the first pics of the Enterprise appeared, they complained about the sets, they complained about the plot, they complained about scenarios… But I believe all this complaining is done on the basis of comparing Trek09 with TOS. For people who never watched Star Trek, and had nothing to compare it to, they found it to be an exciting, interesting movie (apart from us Trekkies who liked it anyway). Those people who compare every facet of TOS with “Star Trek” are walking away saying, “That’s not the Star Trek I know.” True enough, but I still don’t think that makes it a bad thing. Letting go of the past is often a good move, especially when living in the present and heading towards the future.

I have seen it. It’s quite forgettable. And each time I try to watch it the more forgettable it becomes to me.

What was the exact line? And while I may be wrong that it was never done before, I can almost guarantee that if it showed up in a TNG fillm it was done ineptly, which is close enough to never having been done before to warrant doing it again, but in a way that is memorable.

Right on. I LOVE TOS. It’s my favorite show of all time and always will be. And yes, as anyone can tell by handle, I wish Bill had appeared in the new movie with Leonard. But I understand we’ll never get that exact same magic back. Two of the original actors are dead, as are Roddenberry and many of the writers. But we got the characters back, and dammit, they’re young again and more popular than ever. I don’t care that these new adventures don’t take place in the old universe. I’d probably enjoy it less if they did, already knowing how everything is going to play out.

Well I see the franchise this way, the spin-offs of the spin-off had become mediocre, including the movies. To me Enterprise was not a prequel to Star Trek, it was much more a prequel to Next Generation. Even the ship looked like a proto next generation ship, as did the bridge. I thought we would see a Daedalus or the ring shaped star ship. I tried very hard to give the series a chance, but it just didnt hold my interest. So IMO The Next Generation and its spin-offs had ran its course.

The next logical step was to bring back the first Star Trek, modernized and re-imagined. Paramount seen this, thats why they brought in the current team. I really cant think of another way the studeo could have brought the series back to life with the successful outcome we seen. (if someone else can, more power to them)

@390: Harry, I’m imaging the line as an introduction to the concept for this new crew, going all the way back to the beginning, as their 5 year mission starts. After you mentioned it I remembered the scene in FC. I’m imagining that line used in a more meaningful was as the idea is introduced as something the Federation (after the sequel, when the competence of the entire crew working together is firmly established) pressures Starfleet into offering this mission to this bold young captain and his crew. It’s a throwaway line in FC. I’m hoping for a mention that is much more significant in terms of the plot.

Notice I also said that the Federation pressures Starfleet into offering this newly conceived 5 year mission, this new “star trek,” to Kirk and company. That implies some fame throughout the Federation of the exploits of this new crew. I imagine that after the sequel, the Enterpise and her captain become known as something more than a fluke one hit cosmic wonder, in much the same way that people like General Petraeus are widely known.

#428. “Sounds like you have an axe to grind, against change. I simply fail to see the logic in returning to the prime universe with new actors as Kirk & Spock. What for, so old fans could sleep comfy at night knowing this is the exact same Kirk and Spock they’ve always known? Would the uniforms and sets have to match those seen in TOS? Would the writers have to take pains not to contradict anything we saw in those previous 85 stories? Would we watch each new episode knowing that Kirk is going to fall off a rock and die someday?”

You’ve ground your axe so much, I doubt there’s much blade left.

I’m not going to fall for this straw-man-against-change BS. If anything, your resistance to the idea of re-inventing the Prime universe shows some resistance to change on your part.

The fact is, there’s plenty of rich stories left to be told in the original universe and to simply discount it because you can’t fathom further exposition there is beyond me. Your absurd leaps in supposition above are proof of how narrow your views are on the subject.

I’m not advocating one or the other, but I’m also not opposed to either.

And once again, I don’t see Paramount giving two hoots about catering to the original fanbase – the liberties Abrams has taken in the new film are proof of that. Paramount is out for fresh blood, and that means nothing that came before matters at all. For these audiences, each new movie by a different production team with different actors is merely a different interpretation of a franchise they’ve become interested in. The days of a franchise with the same actors carrying it as THE same characters for 25 years are over. Audiences are accustomed to and likely expect such changes. And after three successful films from Abrams, the new Star Trek fanbase will look nothing like it does now, much less what it has for the last 40 years. So who knows what will make the most sense then?

What if a new producer wants to go back to Vulcan? Oops, can’t do that if they tie themselves to the canon Abrams has created. What if you want to do another time-travel story someday? Oops, can’t do that in Abrams canon without creating yet another alternate parallel universe and more Kirks and Spocks. Canon has its traps and pitfalls no matter what one does. But to simply eliminate a possibility because of the threat of conflict canon is ridiculous. Star Trek has two ways to tell stories now, so why not take advantage of that? All I’m saying.

They could do a Guardian / Mirror Mirror spin. Just as they are about to jump through the portal, they are exchanged with their counter parts in an alternate (PRIME) universe. That way they could mix with crews from Capt. Pike’s ship and with Capt. Kirk’s ship with Spock being the only one common to both ships. They don’t have to go to the past. They could be bouncing all over time with some kind of problem because of the Mirror Mirror storm effect which causes some of them to swap universes at different times with different parts of the crews. They could learn about what their future was supposed to be like before Nero. They’ll need to find someone who understands time and time travel to get back. They learn about Data from one of their jumps and manage to snatch him off of Shinzon’s ship right before it blows up so that he can help get them back where they belong. That way you get new universe, old universe, Capt Pike, no villain just a problem to solve and close with a scene of Data greeting Picard and telling him he has a fascinating story to tell.

#445 … Well, Red Skirt, it seems pretty clear you didn’t enjoy what JJ & co. offered up. So let’s say you’re right and JJ, Pine, Quinto, etc. step down after Star Trek XIII, which will be released in either 2014 or 2015. Then there will be a bit of down time, and the franchise might return with a new team, but not before 2017. It might even be a return to the prime universe. So just chill out, put your axe down, have some tranya, and wait 7 or more years. :)

On a more serious note, given that the Star Trek story has been re-started, and given the popularity of TNG, I betcha … I just betcha, Picard & co. WILL get another life on screen. It’ll be new actors, of course, and it seems likely that it’ll be JJ-verse, but the TNG crew will eventually surface again. You heard it here first.

I like your idea of this new crew being distinct from others by them being assigned a 5 year star trek mission. To “boldly go” where others haven’t. It also implies they are the best in the fleet. That’s why we’re watching THEIR adventures, and not somebody else’s.

If this IS the way the producers are going, then I predict the next movie would HAVE to be called:

I’d say that we could use “Star Trek: The Final Frontier” or “The Final Frontier” as titles but it would just be too similar to “Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.” And would create confusion to people who know nothing about Star Trek and are coming in to watch it for the first time.

I’m cool with the no “Star Trek” in the title. Just as long as it doesn’t lose what makes it “Star Trek.” On the other hand, using the TNG movie titling system works fine with me too.

By the way, I’m mad because I was IN FREAKIN’ TULSA the day Shatner was at the Star Trek convention there and I knew nothing about it and I missed it! I’m so angry!!!

#424: “Huh? So you’re saying that after they stop making movies with the new Kirk, Spock and McCoy, you hope they’ll start making movies with a new Kirk, Spock and McCoy, only difference being these even newer versions will be in the “prime” universe?”

Um, no. I can only assume English is your second, if not third, language, so I’ll try to walk you through this:

(1) I never said that’s what I “hope.” I said it’s one of _several_ directions I can imagine the next team taking.

(2) and that _if_ things fall that way, it’s one of many such possibilities I’d love to see.

(3) There are several other, distinct paths I can also envision (see prior post), but I was clarifying my position on that specific one in response to Red Skirt’s post.

It is _not at all_ the possibility I’d choose if given a choice, but if it happens, it’s something I’d love to see what people would do with.

If they aren’t going to name it something with “STAR TREK” right in it, then they really need to name it something that’s so immediately recognizable as Star Trek that nobody cares. The TV show Enterprise worked (Although they did add Star Trek: to it later) because EVERYBODY knows the U.S.S. Enterprise.

So something to do with Vulcans, Klingons, Starfleet, the United Federation of Planets. That would do well.

Or they could just drop the colon and do what the original Batman series did. STAR TREK RETURNS? “Returns” gets used a lot. STAR TREK UNITED? Yeah … I know “X3: X-Men United” used United, but that movie sucked, and the word “United” is a perfect fit for Star Trek.

Of course, it won’t make much sense if they don’t actually … you know … “UNITE” against something. Like the United Federation of Planets has to stay United to fight against the Klingon Empire, or something.

#445: “And once again, I don’t see Paramount giving two hoots about catering to the original fanbase – the liberties Abrams has taken in the new film are proof of that.”

That was my point precisely … that the new team will not feel beholden to the old team, and that opens up many (exciting) possibilities, just _one_ of which being the one captain neill was asking about in post #304 (alas, my response to said post seems to have confused some of our non-English speaking cousins).

In fact, each time it happens, it will become increasingly likely that every new creative team will grant themselves a blank slate (which I find most exciting of all … because that would increase our odds of getting a very courageous Star Trek film … and THAT, in any form, is what I do hope for).

#447, I enjoyed it fine. There you go putting words under my fingers again. Doesn’t mean I couldn’t have enjoyed it more. ;-) I think hands down the parallel universe solution to rebooting the franchise without conceptually erasing the last 40 years was the single most brilliant aspect of the story AND the marketing of the film. As I plainly wrote, I don’t really care in which universe they choose to tell their stories. But I would like the stories to be good, meaningful, intelligent, and cohesive, as well as enjoyable.

Call it payback for giving Pike wrong dialogue in the last film, which wasn’t the right description at all! :p

Starfleet would be the peace keeping armada.

The Federation is the alliance of different worlds.

You can’t have an armada of planets. Planets don’t go exploring or keeping the peace around the galaxy. They don’t behave like that in Star Trek… maybe Space: 1999, Doctor Who or the Death Star in Star Wars.

*** Yes, Chris… I hear you cry, but what about Trelane throwing Gothos at the Enterprise in Episode 18? ****

#427. Red Skirt said “FIrst they are reviving the franchise for new fans, and come on, you can’t exactly kill Kirk Spock or McCoy anyway or it’s no longer Star Trek. Even the Prime universe had sense enough not to do that”
.
Umm..maybe I’m being a stickler but that’s exactly what TWoK did: kill Spock.

No lesser a personage than Nimoy himself, a person some in these parts would elevate to ST expert prime, lobbied for it through 3 different Paramount attempts to revive it.

And STAR TREK carried on. Nimoy changed his mind and they resurrected Spock. But make no mistake about it: Spock died and “they” did, in fact, kill him.

The fact that they used Marcus’ forbidden science and an arcane Vulcan ritual to resurrect him (much to Shatner’s dismay) did not make that death a non-occurrence. They didn’t go back in time and undo it.

Hmm. My take on it (not to be confused, necessarily, with Red Skirt’s take on it):

(A) Red Skirt’s point (as you so kindly quoted) is founded on the notion that this is meant to be a revival, a new beginning. As of TWoK, Star Trek was long done, relegated to things like cinematic tie-in products (such as TWoK itself). To be sure, Star Trek is still long done and relegated likewise, but now, they are no longer _supposed_ to be a backward glance, but rather a move forward. That makes an entirely different climate with different creative goals.
(B) “They” were an altogether different “they.” The current films aren’t even made by the same company, let alone the same people. STII was made by Paramount. ST09 was only “presented by” Paramount (and Spyglass) but made by Bad Robot (and MavroCine) … and even if things change and the next one is made by Paramount, it wouldn’t be the same “they,” since none or virtually none of the same decision-makers would be involved.

“I am sick to death of it always having to be a villian in a Star Trek movie! How about something original for a change? You don’t need a villian to have drama and conflict.”

So did ST:TMP and so many people dislike the first film. But overall I agree with the idea–at its heart this should be a sci-fi story, a creative, imaginitive, thought-provoking adventure. I’ve always enjoyed The Next Gen episodes because they could tell a great story without having to rely always on villains and battles. Let’s get back to the “unknown”. Like, how about a journey to the “edge of the Galaxy” rehashing the idea from TOS.

There was a series of great Star Trek novels written in the 80s and 90s which I grew up with, some of these stories were just amazing and would have made excellent episodes in their own right. Do I think we’ll see anything as “coldly alien and strange” as V’ger in this sequel? I doubt it, it sounds like the producers all have their hearts set on a great villain. If they do go that direction…it shouldn’t be a “bad guy placeholder” like Nero, whoever it is needs to have personal involvement and heavy emotion invested in his vile deeds, as was the case with Khan. How’s about a renegade Starfleet captain, whom the Enterprise is sent to stop but whose motivation for his actions strike a sympathetic nerve? We’ve seen the original crew steal the Enterprise and defy all of Starfleet for what was important, might not the crew now find themselves on the other side of a moral dilemma?

Among the best insight I’ve ever heard from an author: in the great stories, there are no good guys, no bad guys. There’s only intentions. I always thought Khan became far more interesting when he wasn’t just a token power-hungry despot but his motives instead rested upon an obsession for revenge.

#470: “…it shouldn’t be a “bad guy placeholder” like Nero, whoever it is needs to have personal involvement and heavy emotion invested in his vile deeds, as was the case with Khan.”

In fairness (and I agree absolutely that Nero was a “placeholder”), Nero was very much an “as was the case with Khan” style of bloke … a fairly direct knockoff on many points. Khan lost his girl and his world and blamed Kirk , who tried to help him out … Nero lost his girl and his world and blamed Spock, who tried to help him out … while Nero’s version made a lot less sense (and thus required Nero to be bat-squirt crazy in lieu of characterization) it’s not like the lineage is unclear; the serial numbers weren’t even smudged, let alone filed off. They both used little alien-critter-props on people; they both left comparable teeth-marks on the scenery, et multiple cetera. A few details were different in that “Vanilla Ice” way (working-class miner vs. exalted genetic superman, for instance) but they were simplistic toggle-flips (and very little of it made it on-screen, anyway).

Nero was more of a mwahahaha cartoon villain, to be sure, but he was a mwahahaha cartoon version of Khan.

It occurs to me that we are about the same age. I believe you are a family man and no doubt have had as full and challenging a life as any of us (well, perhaps not as challenging as those Star Trek employees that fought WWII and the Korean War but the point stands).

Please tell us what you’ve learned in your life. Present a challenge that you’ve overcome, or perhaps someone dear to you has overcome, and use the vastness of the Star Trek lore to tell it in a way that makes us see it clearly, without the usual cliches and dogma of the Talking Heads or Ivory Tower hacks that spend their lives telling us how to be obedient programmed robots.

Tell us how you think. Tell us how you triumphed … or failed. Tell us why it matters to us, too.

386. S. John Ross: “I’d personally love to see new movies about the real McCoy (and his Vulcan friend Spock, and their punchy sidekick the other guy) with them played by all-new actors”

424. Shatner_Fan_Prime: “So you’re saying that after they stop making movies with the new Kirk, Spock and McCoy, you hope they’ll start making movies with a new Kirk, Spock and McCoy, only difference being these even newer versions will be in the ‘prime’ universe?”

450. S. John Ross: “I never said that’s what I ‘hope.’ I said it’s one of _several_ directions I can imagine the next team taking … and that _if_ things fall that way, it’s one of many such possibilities I’d love to see.”

Oh, now I get it. You don’t hope for it, you’d just love to see it. That makes sense. You, sir, are a master of splitting tribble hairs. I”ll be looking for your barber shop on Deep Space Station K7.

You state that you’d love to see movies with Kirk, Spock and McCoy played by new actors. We already have that. Your distinction is that you’d love (but not hope) for them to be the “real” versions. They’re fictional characters. What would be the benefit of Paramount patting old trekkies on the head and assuring them that Karl Urban is De Kelley right down to the last cell and switching the universe/characters back to “prime/real?” This is the question I never see anyone give a satisfactory answer to.

Used that very technique on first one to track the life of Spock,who was born to parents from different cultures, as I was, and who was raised on a different planet, much as I was raised in a different country, faced racism, like I did, and had to learn the language and customs of his adoptive culture (earth, the federation), as I had to learn English and the ways of the USA.

Well, my specific point that I was addressing was her contention that the Prime Universe didn’t even try to do that.

Of course, I’m interpreting that since it is generally inconceivable that the “Prime Universe” could actually “kill” Spock or have motivation to do so that she was actually referring to the productions giving birth to it. And the facts are that one singular “they”, Nimoy, did try to kill Spock through 3 different “Prime Universe” attempts to restart STAR TREK and succeeded on the 3rd attempt and yet ST II and ST III are still regarded as STAR TREK.

Some try to equate it to Commander Scott’s Nomad “death” but in that episode McCoy is clear: He wasn’t brain dead.

At the end of TWoK Spock was heart dead, brain dead and every cell in his body irradiated dead. He was deader than dead, and that’s the way Nimoy wanted him – until… he changed his mind.

No matter how you slice it, the metaphorical Prime Universe did so try to kill off a specific main character and still have it be STAR TREK. Yes, they ultimately resorted to resurrection but (as you so astutely pointed out) not one, not two, but three different STAR TREK production teams tried to accommodate the death of this main character, and still have it be STAR TREK. And when “they” finally pulled the death off, it was still STAR TREK.

Hmmm…maybe “they” can kill off a main planet and still have STAR TREK. But I wonder if a resurrection isn’t called for?

Throwing this out there:

Given what was known about the Ceti Alpha system pre-Khan, wouldn’t Ceti Alpha V be an ideal place to resurrect the Vulcan civilization?

Given what Spock Prime knows about Ceti Alpha VI, wouldn’t that pretty much given them a license to mine VI to bits to for the raw materials to rebuild on V?

We’ve seen how one powerful intellect tried to make a go there. Wouldn’t it be interesting to see what the Vulcan intellect would do in contrast?

According to Nimoy, in TWOK and TSFS DVD documentaries, this is basically what happened re: Spock’s Death.

– During Trek II Development, they needed Spock to come back as a character.
– Nimoy was offered the chance to do a Death Scene.
– He had assumed that this would be the last Star Trek movie made, and Spock’s death would be a great sendoff for the character.
– During the later part of filming Khan, he realized that the chemistry was working, and the vibe he felt making TOS was there.
– He and Harve Bennet were coming to the conclusion that there might be further adventures for the Enterprise, and wanted to leave some sense of “Hope”.
– This culminated in the “Remember” moment in Engineering with an unconcious McCoy.
– Due to the ending being depressing during test screenings of TWOK, the Genesis sequence was added before Spock’s prologue was added, and the last scenes with Kirk on the Bridge was slightly rewritten and reshot, to leave, again a sense of Hope.
– These threads were later picked up and used as the basis for Star Trek III when Star Trek II proved successful.
– Nimoy expressed his wish to direct at that point.
– BTW, there was nothing in Nimoy’s contract about Spock dying, though even some Paramount exec’s believed the rumors to the contrary.

Bob, THANK YOU! You took CSL’s question and made such a marvelous point and cleared up something many of us could only assume. I think you are a very model of how important diversity is to the US. You’re more proof of the vision of Dr. King’s content of character dream. I hope Anthony extracts your remarks for an article. (Also, you may want to beat Quinto to the punch with an autobiography titled “I Am Also Spock”!)

(If this also implies Alex is the Kirk to your Spock, that I’m sure amuses him! Who’s your guys’ McCoy? Damon?? Just be sure to pull a Hitchcock in the sequel and be a Vulcan in the background!)

It must vex you when you filled out the Census2010 form, specifying race, then marking Hispanic origin, and then having to identify which country. Do you say Mexico, or do you say Cuba? A shame that if we take our census forms and just put “human” for race, they’ll be very upset at us. Yikes.

If you find a way to take the current “opportunity crisis” (I prefer that to border crisis) and use it in the sequel, more power to you. After all, the Federation must be swarming with displaced Vulcans now. And if it’s clear that Vulcans and Romulans are kin as a result, does that mean that Vulcans are now receiving blame for the Romulan Wars for hiding what they knew? They’d be pariahs because “they knew”. Vulcans taking jobs away from Humans… oh my!?

Anyway, just as Spock later was honored by the Vulcan Science Academy with honorary degrees, etc. (in the novels), I’m sure some latter day you too will be recognized in Austin. Whereas Spock bleeds green, do you bleed orange? :)

The next movie will be a comedy where the crew go on shore leave on some planet and while getting drunk in some seedy comedy club bar, they start heckling the comedian on stage. Little do they know it’s a revived Khan, who was discovered by some Andorians and dropped off on the planet. Khan is trying some of his new material when Kirk blurts out some question regarding Khan’s mother. Khan mutters, “he tasks me!” before leaping into the crowd and punching Kirk. All hell breaks loose…

I look forward to more such story-telling in your second installment. My father participated directly in the Cuban blockade; he held a great admiration for the Cuban people whom he came to know during the time of the Batista government. He never accept the Castro regime and its brutality, neither could he pardon Kennedy the Bay of Pigs fiasco which cost so many good men their lives.

It might be interesting to both your heritage and to the story-teller in you to know that I come from what many would call an American “blue blood” pedigree of the Pilgrim Fathers, if not Mayflower, and Huguenot royalty in the lines of Charlemagne and Martel (and a lot of commoners, lol.)

There is very little to show for it when you think about it. Entire branches of my family were killed in their prime. One tragic example is the Battle of Saratoga in which John Burleigh Snr fought as an American while his son John Jr fought with their neighbors, the Freeman family (also my direct forefathers), as Loyalist volunteers.

Father and son both were killed in action.

The Freeman family and half the Burleighs fled to Canada; those that returned did so only after fifty years had passed.

I am very glad you have always shown humble respect to your adoptive home and her people, as they are worthy. It boils my blood to hear the ingratitude and worse from the offspring of immigrants that came here of their own free will, seeking only money and gain but without the great sacrifices and unending suffering of the Fathers.

No matter. Such a story — of the willing sacrifices and suffering endured for the sake of Liberty — is worth telling again. Few alive today understand even as a matter of family history what it means.

Perhaps not so much as you might think. Or is it your contention that the 1974 television attempt and the first motion picture never intended to go forward? What did you think the Xon character was created for? Specifically to die in a horrible transporter accident?

We only appear to disagree on TWoK and at that because you have blinders on only seeing an old crew running down where I see all those cadets running around, David, and especially Saavik who where originally intended to fill a void left by a permanently dead Spock upon which it was intended that the narrative would build and STAR TREK would go forward. But somebody changed his mind and that’s what scuttled the movie’s original going forward design.

I mean the character Carol Marcus asked Kirk in the end “How do you feel? ” and Kirk replied “Young again.” Do you honestly think that line was written after the writer/producer decided that Spock wasn’t going to stay dead?

Xon is Data. Except he’s a *pure Vulcan* who wishes to understand and even attempt to be human. Even the E@F Pinocchio lines, and the can’t-whistle bit all originate from Phase II pre-production. When you see he’s the anti-Spock role that saw fruition in TNG’s Data, it’s understandable what Xon would have been like. “Michael York-like” as the Phase II bible described.

And, yes, Commander Sonak *was* then created specifically to die in a horrible transporter accident. :) “Well, Mr. Decker, I guess you’ll have to also double as science officer.”

Its Canada Day tomorrow, how are you going to celebrate?
I assume you are still in Toronto?

I don’t know what I’m going to do yet, though I am thinking of picking up some Trek novels, such as the Romulan War books. I may go see the fireworks in the Inner Harbor in Victoria. Not sure what the weather will be like though.

But I think it even makes it more clear that the original direction of TWoK script that all the principles signed up for was not a “wind down.” It totally changed direction because of the kludge of having to bring Spock back from the dead. This is what Shatner was so upset about on the DVD extra. Kirk’s last log entry in the film had import and weight that was sabotaged by the kludge of bringing Spock back. Now, it is looked back on as a winding down but it absolutely wasn’t scripted and filmed that way – it was a looking forward.

And don’t get me wrong, as a series fan I enjoyed having Spock back but I was always aware there was a severe price paid for my being catered to in that fashion.

Those embedded Russian spies in the news probably aren’t doing much to help end that either.

That was one weird day. I had just dug up the first season of THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E. to better ponder its significance to Trek (Doohan, Shatner and Nimoy). In the break between the first and second episodes came that as breaking news.

I thought I’d jumped The Guardian or something – it felt so weird.

Well, I guess I can be grateful to Canadians for bringing me ROYAL PAINS?

Maybe Khan could be the comic relief. I mean, all characters have different lives since Star Trek 11. So maybe, his life might also have taken a different turn. Perhaps he is a good, nice guy in Star Trek 12.

I hope they keep the fresh, original tone of Star Trek 11 making it an adventure without heavy broader message. I think Star Trek itself already represents that.

I have enjoyed StarTrek since it’s inception and I am a 60 yr old male. I have talked with my friends about the latest “Star Trek” movie and we all agree that it is brilliantly written and directed, well acted, exciting plot and the best Star Trek ever! This movie came out at the right time. We are all waiting on the sequel to elaborate and invove the “new” Star Trek crew as their mannerisms and acting are refreshingly unique and and the same time like the original crew. It takes a heck of a good movie for my friends and myself to watch over and over and I look forward to J.J. Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman to come up with a sequel that matches plot, action (more battle scenes), acting and special effects that challenge the adult mind. Please, no Pooh Bears, gremlins, talking leperchans or other gimicks. All We expect is for Abrams (The Coppola/Kubrick Genius) to make a sequel as good or better, not another Star Trek “Insurrection” amateur embarrassment. Anyway, I just wanted Abrams and Kurtzman to know how perfect a movie they produced…looking forward to the Sequel. Also, one last note, don’t cheapen the movie by involving Star Trek “Generations” actors or cameo appearences of the ‘original crew or villians” as it is not necessary. Abrams movie and cast stands on it’s own! Thanks

Just keep the title simple – Star Trek 2. Star Trek II has already been done. It was called the Wrath of Khan. This is a new series of Trek so instead of using Roman numerals, as with the first series of TOS films, use Arabic numerals. Besides, the words Star Trek have always had a really good “ring”, sound, feel to them.

Please, no Khan or Borg or anything like that. Been done. In the last few months since coming onto the internet, I have read so much about TWOK as in how wonderful it was blah, blah, blah that I cannot bring myself the watch the movie.

Bob Orci, if you really want to stimulate my gag reflex, just write Khan into the script. I am so SICK TO BL**DY DEATH of reading about Khan, bl**dy Khan. UGH!!!!!!!!

I have created a planet that is awaiting discovery by this crew of the Enterprise. It is beautiful. The people are capable of limited space travel in organic beings called Nulis .Kirk meets his longtime love there. I call the world Menosia…(I don’t know if these words have been used anywhere else in any stories – I can’t find them anywhere) My story may seem similar to others perhaps, but I assure you that is coincidental.

I know other trekkies would like to see great space battles and/or big, bad villains, but I would also like to see great beauty, love, a little whimsy, and good humour

Anyway, I hope all is going well. I am looking forward to 29 June 2012!